Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

Inflationary background renormalization

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Background renormalization in inflation leaves a finite, scheme-dependent one-loop correction to the curvature power spectrum that cannot be absorbed.

desk verdict A focused, plausible demonstration that fixing the one-point function leaves a scheme-dependent finite one-loop two-point function in single-field inflation; the quantitative terms are conditional on the WKB mode function, but the central point survives. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18514 v1 pith:O76TFBNT submitted 2025-04-25 hep-th astro-ph.CO

Jason Kristiano , Jun'ichi Yokoyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thastro-ph.CO
keywords single-fieldinflationcurvatureperturbationbackgroundrenormalizationone-looppowerspectrumregularizationschemedependenceultra-slow-rollprimordialblackholesconsistencyrelation
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

To make sense of non-linear inflationary predictions, the background must be renormalized so that the curvature perturbation has zero expectation value. The paper shows that this background renormalization fixes two linear counterterms, which then induce quadratic counterterms through the non-linear gauge transformation between field variables. Those induced counterterms subtract only the divergent part of the one-loop two-point function; the remaining finite correction depends on the regularization scheme and cannot be absorbed, because the quadratic counterterms are already fully fixed by the one-point condition. This matters because one-loop power spectra are used to constrain phenomena such as primordial black hole formation, so a scheme-dependent residual changes what can be predicted without imposing further renormalization conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ultraviolet limit of the canonical perturbation variable, $\lim_{k\to\infty}\Delta_v^2(k,\tau)=k^2/(4\pi^2)+\frac{1}{8\pi^2}z''/z$ (equation 19), which fixes which parts of $\langle\delta\varphi^2\rangle$ are divergent in each regularization scheme. The argument then runs through the background renormalization $\phi=(1+\delta Z/2)\phi_R$, $V=V_R+\delta V$; the linear counterterms fixed by $\langle\zeta\rangle=0$; the quadratic counterterms they induce; and the consistency relation (31) that identifies the cubic-exchange integral with the logarithmic derivative of the power spectrum, guaranteeing the divergence cancellation. The different treatment of time and wavenumber integrals in cutoff versus dimensional regularization is what produces the scheme-dependent finite terms.

What would settle it

Evaluate the one-loop renormalized two-point function directly in the comoving gauge for a specific featured potential, without the $p\ll k$ approximation. If the cutoff and dimensional-regularization results can be made identical after absorbing the finite remainder into the quadratic counterterms that the one-point renormalization condition induces, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors consider single-field inflation in flat slicing, with the action expanded to quartic order, and impose the renormalization condition $\langle\zeta\rangle=0$ on the comoving curvature perturbation. They introduce the background renormalization $\phi=(1+\delta Z/2)\phi_R$, $V=V_R+\delta V$, and show that the tadpole $\langle\delta\varphi\rangle$ is cancelled by the linear counterterms $\delta V_1$ and $\delta Z$ once $\langle\zeta\rangle=0$ is enforced. These linear counterterms generate quadratic counterterms through the second-order gauge transformation $f^{(2)}(\zeta)$, and the paper computes the one-loop two-point function in both cutoff and dimensional regularization. The divergent pieces cancel, as a manifestation of the single-field consistency relation, but the finite parts obtained in the two schemes differ, and because the quadratic counterterms are already determined the difference must be kept. The paper therefore concludes that background renormalization alone is insufficient and that additional quadratic counterterms, of the sound-speed or higher-derivative type, are needed to make the two-point function fully renormalized.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the ultraviolet behaviour of the perturbation variable follows the WKB expansion in equation (19) in both regularization schemes, and that the flat-slicing action with $N=1$, $N^i=0$ captures all relevant non-linear interactions; if either assumption fails, the explicit finite terms in equations (30) and (36) would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One-loop power spectra in single-field inflation are not fully determined until a renormalization condition is imposed on the two-point function itself, not just on the background.
  • The residual loop correction can be large and grow with time, so curvature perturbations can evolve significantly outside the horizon at loop level.
  • Primordial-black-hole abundance estimates that rely on one-loop corrections inherit a regularization-scheme dependence unless extra counterterms are introduced.
  • The divergence cancellation provides a direct check of the single-field consistency relation, since any mismatch would leave an uncancelled ultraviolet divergence.
  • The same logic extends to higher-point functions, whose loop corrections will generically not be fully subtracted by background renormalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical resolution would be to promote the scheme dependence into a measured parameter, for instance by fixing the two-point renormalization condition to the CMB normalization at a pivot scale.
  • The same mechanism should affect the bispectrum and trispectrum, whose loop corrections will inherit scheme-dependent finite parts that require their own counterterms.
  • If the residual term is as large as the paper allows, the perturbative expansion may break down in strongly featured potentials, making a non-perturbative treatment necessary.
  • The superhorizon growth of the residual hints that loop corrections could mimic or contaminate signals attributed to primordial black holes or stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the question of whether the renormalization condition ⟨ζ⟩=0 in single-field inflation fixes the counterterms needed to render the one-loop two-point function finite. The authors introduce two linear counterterms (wave function and potential) and show that the induced quadratic counterterms cancel the divergence of the cubic-exchange diagram, leaving a finite, regularization-scheme-dependent correction. They identify the cancellation with Maldacena's consistency condition and argue that the residual finite term cannot be absorbed by the quadratic counterterms because those are fixed by the one-point renormalization condition. The calculation is performed in flat slicing with N=1, N^i=0, and the finite terms are computed in both cutoff and dimensional regularization.

Significance. If correct, the paper establishes a conceptual point missing from the recent PBH/loop-correction debate: background renormalization with a one-point condition does not automatically make the two-point function scheme-independent, and additional quadratic counterterms (e.g., speed-of-sound or higher-derivative operators) are needed. The use of Maldacena's consistency relation as an exact subtraction identity is elegant, and the explicit scheme dependence in Eqs. (30) and (36) is a concrete testable claim. The strength of the paper is its clear framework and the cross-check via the consistency condition; the weakness is that the quantitative finite terms rely on the WKB asymptotic form for all k and on a truncated flat-gauge action. The result is important for the debate but should not be taken as the final word until the companion comoving-gauge calculation and a treatment of non-adiabatic modes are available.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (19), (28), (30), (33), (36)] The finite parts of the renormalized two-point function are evaluated by inserting the WKB asymptotic form (19) for Δ²_v into the k-integrals. Equation (33) is the clearest point: the subtraction (32) is exact, but the evaluation of the right-hand side uses (19) to replace Δ²_v by its UV expansion. For a featured potential, the mode function has non-adiabatic corrections near k_f ∼ aH, and these contribute to the finite part of the dimensionally regularized integral as ∫ dk g(k), which is not removed by the rule ∫ dk k^α=0. Hence the explicit finite terms (30) and (36), and the conclusion that the finite term 'must be taken as it is', are not uniquely determined by the calculation presented. The authors should either evaluate the exact mode sum (numerically or analytically for a specific potential) or explicitly restrict the claim to the UV contribution and defer the full finite part to the companion paper [82].
  2. [Eq. (3) and following text] The action used for the loop computation is truncated to flat slicing with N=1 and N^i=0, so metric perturbations in flat gauge are not included in the cubic and quartic vertices. For featured potentials with large η, these neglected terms can be of the same order as the kept terms, so the one-loop two-point function computed here may not be the full single-field result. Since the conclusion that the finite term is large and time-dependent is quantitative, the authors should either justify the truncation in the relevant regime or make the domain of validity explicit. The promised comoving-gauge calculation in [82] is welcome but does not by itself establish the present result.
  3. [Eqs. (6)–(10) and the statement 'we have fixed the two counterterms'] One renormalization condition, ⟨ζ⟩_ren = 0, cannot by itself fix the two functions δV(t) and δZ(t). The choice δV1 = -V3⟨δφ²⟩/2 below Eq. (10) is an additional assumption (or a second renormalization condition) that is not derived from ⟨ζ⟩=0. The authors should show that either (i) the residual freedom in the split does not affect the renormalized two-point function, or (ii) the background equation of motion (11) provides the second condition, and derive the resulting relation. Without this, the claim that the quadratic counterterms are 'completely fixed' by the one-point renormalization condition is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The notation '⟨δφ(x, t)⟩bare = ⁄= 0' is garbled; it should read '⟨δφ(x, t)⟩_bare ≠ 0'.
  2. [Text after Eq. (16)] The relation for ilde{δZ} should be ilde{δZ} = -⟨f(2)(ζ)⟩ given the preceding definitions, whereas the text states ilde{δZ} = ⟨f(2)(ζ)⟩; please check the sign or state the convention explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (32)] As written, the left-hand side is integrated over d^{3+δ}k but the right-hand side is not, making the equality dimensionally inconsistent; it should be an equality of integrands, or the right-hand side should carry the same integration.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'non-linear symmetry of the curvature perturbation' is vague; 'non-linear gauge transformation' would be clearer.
  5. [Eq. (33)] The step ∫ dk/k δ k^δ = -1 relies on a specific dimensional-regularization convention for power-law integrals; please state the convention explicitly to avoid sign confusion.
  6. [Footnote 2] The discussion of the disagreement with the cutoff regularization in [74,75] is hard to follow; a short equation or a clear statement of the time argument of the UV cutoff would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the finite one-loop term is an explicit subtraction result, not a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The linear counterterms δV and δZ are fixed by the chosen renormalization condition ⟨ζ⟩=0 through tree-level quantities: δV1 = -V3⟨δφ²⟩/2 and δZ̃ = ⟨f^(2)(ζ)⟩, where ⟨δφ²⟩ is the free-field variance (17) and ⟨f^(2)(ζ)⟩ depends only on the linear mode functions. The induced quadratic counterterm (8) is then a definite functional of these fixed linear counterterms; no parameter is fitted to the one-loop ⟨ζζ⟩ that the paper later computes. The finite renormalized one-loop results (30) and (36) are obtained by explicit subtraction of the UV-divergent cubic-exchange diagram using the same counterterms, so the scheme dependence of the finite remainder is a computed consequence rather than a definitional artifact. The use of Maldacena's consistency relation (31) is an external identity (from [79], with [41] only providing an explicit verification in the sharp-transition case) used to reorganize the loop integral into a total derivative; it is not equivalent to the target two-point function. The WKB UV form (19) is explicitly labeled as an approximation in the k→∞ limit and is a standard adiabatic-regularization input, not a hidden restatement of the result; the paper even notes in footnote 6 that substituting (19) into (31)-(32) is a consistency check, while the subtraction identity itself is stated to hold independently of (19). Self-citations [38-43] provide context and a cross-check but are not load-bearing for the central derivation. Limitations such as the flat-slicing N=1, N^i=0 reduction, the use of WKB for featured potentials, and the deferral of a direct comoving-gauge calculation to the companion paper [82] are correctness/robustness concerns, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no constants. It relies on the standard renormalization prescription: two linear counterterms are fixed to enforce ⟨ζ⟩=0. The axioms above capture the domain assumptions and approximations used to evaluate the loop integrals.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flat-slicing gauge with N=1 and N^i=0 is sufficient to capture the non-linear interactions of the scalar field during slow-roll inflation.
    Used in deriving the Lagrangian (3) and the tadpole and counterterm structure. It ignores metric fluctuations in the action, which could affect the results.
  • domain assumption The non-linear gauge transformation f^(2)(ζ) is exactly that of equation (16) from Maldacena [79].
    Used to relate ⟨δφ⟩ to ⟨ζ⟩ and to fix the counterterm δZ through the relation ⟨ζ⟩_ren = 0.
  • domain assumption The UV limit of the Mukhanov-Sasaki variable is given by the WKB expansion in equation (19).
    Used in both regularization schemes to identify the divergent and finite parts of ⟨δφ²⟩ and to perform the subtraction of the cubic-exchange and counterterm diagrams.
  • domain assumption Maldacena's consistency condition (31) applies to the renormalized background.
    Used to show cancellation of the divergence and to derive the finite term in an alternative way, without relying on the specific UV approximation in (19).
  • ad hoc to paper The background renormalization (6) with two linear counterterms is sufficient to render the one-point function of the curvature perturbation zero.
    The paper postulates this renormalization structure rather than deriving it from an underlying symmetry. It is central to the definition of the renormalized background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflationary background renormalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O76TFBNT

@misc{pith2026250418514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflationary background renormalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O76TFBNT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18514}
}
read the original abstract

In cosmic inflation, non-linearities of the curvature perturbation can induce backreaction to the background. To obtain observational predictions at non-linear order on the correct background, one has to redefine the background or introduce background renormalization. We explicitly demonstrate it with a vanishing one-point function of the curvature perturbation as a renormalization condition, so that proper observational predictions can be made even at the nonlinear level. Due to non-linear symmetry of the curvature perturbation, such a procedure induces corrections to the two-point functions, which yield a finite renormalized one-loop correction that depends on the regularization scheme. Cancellation of the divergence is a manifestation of Maldacena's consistency condition. The finite term can be large and highly time-dependent, which indicates evolution outside the horizon.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Background-independent one-loop renormalization of tensor and scalar primordial spectra

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    UV divergences of one-loop primordial tensor and scalar spectra are absorbed by covariant and tadpole counterterms using only the universal WKB expansion of internal modes, yielding finite model-independent renormaliz...

  2. How Dilatation Invariance Suppresses Loop Corrections to Curvature Perturbations on CMB Scales

    astro-ph.CO 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dilatation invariance forces the non-linear curvature perturbation on super-Hubble scales to depend only on the decaying/growing mode, suppressing loop corrections to the CMB power spectrum even with sharp transitions.

  3. Evolution of Linear Perturbations under Time-Dependent Hubble Friction I: SR-USR-SR Inflation

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Analytic asymptotics show the dip in the SR-USR-SR curvature power spectrum comes from cancellation between two growing modes, not a constant-versus-growing cancellation.

  4. One-loop corrections to infrared GWs is forbidden by symmetries

    gr-qc 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In non-attractor single-field inflation, one-loop corrections to superhorizon gravitational waves cancel, and a Ward identity explains why.

  5. Incorporating Backreaction in One-Loop Corrections in Ultra-Slow-Roll Inflation

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Including the backreaction of quantum fluctuations on the background inflaton cancels the one-loop superhorizon corrections to the curvature power spectrum in ultra-slow-roll inflation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [82]

    Cosmological correlato rs in slow-roll violating inflation,

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, “Cosmological correlato rs in slow-roll violating inflation,” In preparation

    work page

  2. [1]

    A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 (1980)

    1980

  3. [2]

    Sato, Mon

    K. Sato, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 195, 467 (1981)

    1981

  4. [3]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  5. [4]

    Akrami et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  6. [5]

    Akrami et al

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

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Polarski and A

    D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 377 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9504030

    arXiv 1996

  8. [7]

    W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2002 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9702427

    arXiv 1997

Show all 87 references
  1. [8]

    Yokoyama and S

    J. Yokoyama and S. Inoue, Phys. Lett. B 524, 15 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0104083

    2002 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. H. Namjoo, H. Firouzjahi, and M. Sasaki, EPL 101, 39001 (2013), arXiv:1210.3692 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Martin, H

    J. Martin, H. Motohashi, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023514 (2013), arXiv:1211.0083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Motohashi, A

    H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 09, 018 (2015), arXiv:1411.5021 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Ivanov, P

    P. Ivanov, P. Naselsky, and I. Novikov, Phys. Rev. D 50, 7173 (1994)

    1994

  6. [13]

    Yokoyama, Phys

    J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 58, 083510 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9802357

    1998 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Saito, J

    R. Saito, J. Yokoyama, and R. Nagata, JCAP 06, 024 (2008), arXiv:0804.3470 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Sov. Astron. 10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  9. [16]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  10. [17]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399 (1974)

    1974

  11. [18]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Pr og. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  14. [21]

    G. F. Chapline, Nature 253, 251 (1975)

    1975

  15. [22]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6040 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605094

    1996 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Yokoyama, Astron

    J. Yokoyama, Astron. Astrophys. 318, 673 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9509027

    1997 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Afshordi, P

    N. Afshordi, P. McDonald, and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. Lett. 594, L71 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0302035

    2003 arXiv

  18. [25]

    P. H. Frampton, M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, and T. T. Yana gida, JCAP 04, 023 (2010), arXiv:1001.2308 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [26]

    K. M. Belotsky, A. D. Dmitriev, E. A. Esipova, V. A. Gani, A. V. Grobov, M. Y. Khlopov, A. A. Kirillov, S. G. Rubin, and I. V. Svadkovsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1440005 (2014), arXiv:1410.0203 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [27]

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Inomata, M

    K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, Y. Tada, and T. T. Ya nagida, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043504 (2017), arXiv:1701.02544 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  22. [29]

    J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 121301 (2018), arXiv:1710.11196 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [30]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G 48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70, 355 (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. R ev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Raidal, V

    M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP 09, 037 (2017), arXiv:1707.01480 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, E

    Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, E. D. Kovetz, and M. Kamionkowski, Phy s. Rev. D 96, 123523 (2017), arXiv:1709.06576 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Raidal, C

    M. Raidal, C. Spethmann, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, J CAP 02, 018 (2019), arXiv:1812.01930 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Vaskonen and H

    V. Vaskonen and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043015 (2020), arXiv:1908.09752 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [37]

    A. Hall, A. D. Gow, and C. T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123524 (2020), arXiv:2008.13704 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 061301 (2022), arXiv:2104.01953 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 07, 007 (2022), arXiv:2204.05202 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 221003 (2024), arXiv:2211.03395 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103541 (2024), arXiv:2303.00341 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, JCAP 10, 036 (2024), arXiv:2405.12145 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, (2024), arXiv:2405.1214 9 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  37. [44]

    Riotto, (2023), arXiv:2301.00599 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Riotto, (2023), arXiv:2301.00599 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Riotto, (2023), arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Riotto, (2023), arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Choudhury, M

    S. Choudhury, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and M. Sami, Eur. Phys . J. C 84, 884 (2024), arXiv:2301.10000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda, and M. Sami, Phys. Lett. B 845, 138123 (2023), arXiv:2302.05655 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda, and M. Sami, JCAP 11, 066 (2023), arXiv:2303.06066 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., M. Taoso, and A. Urb ano, arXiv:2305.03491 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  43. [50]

    M. W. Davies, L. Iacconi, and D. J. Mulryne, JCAP 04, 050 (2024), arXiv:2312.05694 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    J. H. P. Jackson, H. Assadullahi, A. D. Gow, K. Koyama, V. Vennin, and D. Wands, JCAP 05, 053 (2024), arXiv:2311.03281 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [52]

    S. S. Mishra, E. J. Copeland, and A. M. Green, JCAP 09, 005 (2023), arXiv:2303.17375 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, JCAP 02, 021 (2024), arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Iacconi, D

    L. Iacconi, D. Mulryne, and D. Seery, JCAP 06, 062 (2024), arXiv:2312.12424 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Motohashi and Y

    H. Motohashi and Y. Tada, JCAP 08, 069 (2023), arXiv:2303.16035 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Tasinato, Phys

    G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043526 (2023), arXiv:2305.11568 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Tasinato, Phys

    G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063510 (2024), arXiv:2312.03498 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Maity, H

    S. Maity, H. V. Ragavendra, S. K. Sethi, and L. Sriramkum ar, JCAP 05, 046 (2024), arXiv:2307.13636 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043514 (2024), arXiv:2311.04080 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043519 (2024), arXiv:2403.03841 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Firouzjahi, JCAP 10, 006 (2023), arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    H. Firouzjahi, JCAP 10, 006 (2023), arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Firouzjahi, Universe 10, 456 (2024), arXiv:2411.10253 [hep-ph]

    H. Firouzjahi, Universe 10, 456 (2024), arXiv:2411.10253 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Firouzjahi and B

    H. Firouzjahi and B. Nikbakht, (2025), arXiv:2502.094 81 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  57. [64]

    Firouzjahi and B

    H. Firouzjahi and B. Nikbakht, (2025), arXiv:2502.102 87 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  58. [65]

    Sheikhahmadi and A

    H. Sheikhahmadi and A. Nassiri-Rad, (2024), arXiv:241 1.18525 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  59. [66]

    Fumagalli, arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Fumagalli, arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  60. [67]

    Y. Tada, T. Terada, and J. Tokuda, JHEP 01, 105 (2024), arXiv:2308.04732 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Cheng, D.-S

    S.-L. Cheng, D.-S. Lee, and K.-W. Ng, JCAP 03, 008 (2024), arXiv:2305.16810 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  62. [69]

    Saburov and S

    S. Saburov and S. V. Ketov, Universe 10, 354 (2024), arXiv:2402.02934 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Ballesteros and J

    G. Ballesteros and J. G. Egea, JCAP 07, 052 (2024), arXiv:2404.07196 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Ballesteros, J

    G. Ballesteros, J. Gamb ´ ın Egea, and F. Riccardi, (2024 ), arXiv:2411.19674 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 141001 (2024), arXiv:2403.04682 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Inomata, (2025), arXiv:2502.12112 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Inomata, (2025), arXiv:2502.12112 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Inomata, (2025), arXiv:2502.08707 [astro-ph.CO]

    K. Inomata, (2025), arXiv:2502.08707 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Fang, Z.-H

    C.-J. Fang, Z.-H. Lyu, C. Chen, and Z.-K. Guo, (2025), ar Xiv:2502.09555 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.07926 [ast ro-ph.CO]

    2025

  70. [77]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.13136 [ast ro-ph.CO]

    2025

  71. [78]

    G. L. Pimentel, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 07, 166 (2012), arXiv:1203.6651 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  72. [79]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 013 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210603

    2003 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Pla and B

    S. Pla and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Lett. B 856, 138926 (2024), arXiv:2402.14910 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [81]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 12, 008 (2010), arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Akhshik, H

    M. Akhshik, H. Firouzjahi, and S. Jazayeri, JCAP 07, 048 (2015), arXiv:1501.01099 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Celoria, P

    M. Celoria, P. Creminelli, G. Tambalo, and V. Yingcharo enrat, JCAP 06, 051 (2021), arXiv:2103.09244 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Creminelli, S

    P. Creminelli, S. Renaux-Petel, G. Tambalo, and V. Ying charoenrat, JHEP 03, 010 (2024), arXiv:2401.10212 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Caravano, K

    A. Caravano, K. Inomata, and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys. Rev . Lett. 133, 151001 (2024), arXiv:2403.12811 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Caravano, G

    A. Caravano, G. Franciolini, and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys . Rev. D 111, 063518 (2025), arXiv:2410.23942 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.