Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

On the Gauge Invariance of Secondary Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that applying the Sommerfeld outgoing-wave boundary condition to the Fourier-space kernel of scalar-induced gravitational waves filters out gauge-dependent non-luminal modes, making the energy density $\Omega_{\rm GW}$…

desk verdict A concrete Sommerfeld-filtering prescription that makes Omega_GW gauge-invariant and finite, but the link to what a physical observer measures is left as an explicit conjecture. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13691 v3 pith:SZTVIARI submitted 2025-01-23 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Chen Yuan , Yizhou Lu , Zu-Cheng Chen , Lang Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords scalar-inducedgravitationalwavesgaugeinvarianceSommerfeldboundaryconditioncosmologicalperturbationtheoryadiabaticperturbationsisocurvaturewaveenergydensityradiationdomination
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

The paper takes on a long-standing problem in cosmological perturbation theory: the predicted energy density of scalar-induced gravitational waves (SIGWs) depends on the gauge used to compute it, and in some gauges it diverges. It proposes that the second-order tensor perturbation $h_{ij}$ is not purely gravitational radiation; it mixes in non-propagating, gauge-dependent 'virtual' modes. The proposed fix is to apply the Sommerfeld outgoing-wave boundary condition to each Fourier-space kernel mode and keep only components that oscillate at the speed of light and decay as outgoing spherical waves. After this filtering, the energy density $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ becomes gauge-invariant and finite in arbitrary gauges, for both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations. A sympathetic reader would care because it supplies a physical criterion for what counts as a gravitational wave in an expanding universe and makes SIGW predictions used to probe small-scale primordial physics independent of gauge choice.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a mode-by-mode filter applied to the kernel function $I_X(u,v,x)$ entering the Fourier-space solution for $h^\lambda_k$. The kernel is split as $I^N_X = I^N_{X,Y} + I^N_{X,J} + \Delta I^N_X$; the first two terms describe physical radiation because they asymptote to outward-propagating light-speed waves, $x^{-\beta-1/2}\sin x$ and $x^{-\beta-1/2}\cos x$. The filter is the Sommerfeld condition $\lim_{t\to\infty}(\partial_\eta + \partial_r)(a h_{ij}) = 0$, applied at the level of $I(u,v,x)$ before the momentum integrals in Eq. (2.3). Components that oscillate at the sound speed, such as $\sin(ux/\sqrt{3})$ in radiation domination, or that contain no Green's-function propagation factor and hence no wave-propagation effect, are discarded as non-physical.

What would settle it

A concrete check: search the gauge-transformation kernel $I_\chi(u,v,x)$ in Eq. (2.10) for a term whose large-$x$ behavior is $x^{-\beta-1/2}\sin x$ or $x^{-\beta-1/2}\cos x$; if such a term exists for some $(u,v)$, it satisfies the Sommerfeld condition and would survive the filter, giving a gauge-dependent $\Omega_{\rm GW}$. Alternatively, compute the Newman-Penrose Weyl-scalar energy in comoving gauge and compare it with the filtered $\Omega_{\rm GW}$; a discrepancy would show that the filter does not correspond to a physical measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated for arbitrary gauges, is that the physical $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ is always contributed by the first two oscillating components of the kernel in Eq. (2.4), the terms behaving as $x^{-\beta-1/2}\sin x$ and $x^{-\beta-1/2}\cos x$, and that this result equals the Newtonian-gauge result. The remaining part of the kernel—the $\Delta I^N_X$ piece even in Newtonian gauge, and the $I_\chi$ piece generated by any gauge transformation—violates the Sommerfeld boundary condition because it oscillates at the sound speed (e.g., $\sin(ux/\sqrt{3})$) and does not propagate at the speed of light. These pieces are declared non-physical radiation and are filtered out. The paper shows this concretely for radiation domination: the previously reported $x^2$ divergence in comoving gauge and the $x^4$ divergence in synchronous gauge disappear after filtering, for adiabatic and isocurvature sources respectively. The same filtered kernel is obtained in every gauge, so the late-time GW spectrum becomes unique.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the flat-spacetime outgoing-wave condition, applied to each Fourier-space kernel mode before integrating over momenta, picks out exactly the part of the tensor perturbation that a physical observer would measure as gravitational radiation in an expanding universe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • SIGW spectra for both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations can be computed in any gauge without gauge-suitability arguments; the answer always matches the Newtonian-gauge result.
  • The divergent $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ scalings reported in comoving, synchronous, uniform-density, and other gauges are explained as contamination from non-luminal, non-propagating modes rather than physical divergences.
  • Observational predictions for pulsar-timing-array and future space-based gravitational-wave backgrounds from scalar-induced sources become gauge-robust, since the filtered spectra are uniquely defined.
  • The analytic filtered kernel formulas in Appendix B give ready-to-use $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ spectra in radiation domination for both adiabatic and isocurvature sources.
  • The filtering resolves the internal inconsistency of using $h'_{ij}(k) = k h_{ij}(k)$ to compute energy density in gauges where part of $h_{ij}$ does not propagate at light speed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If accepted, the same boundary-condition criterion should apply to other local gravitational-wave observables such as geodesic deviation or Newman-Penrose scalars, so the filtered $\Omega_{\rm GW}$ should match a tetrad measurement; the paper leaves this correspondence as a conjecture.
  • The method suggests a sharp conceptual distinction between tensor perturbations and gravitational radiation: only the wave-zone, luminal, decaying part carries energy, so GW energy densities should be defined after a wave-zone projection rather than by averaging all quadratic tensor modes.
  • A natural stress test is to apply the same filtering to SIGWs with a general sound speed $c_s \neq 1/\sqrt{3}$; the filter's reliance on light-speed propagation may need modification, and gauge invariance could fail if source transfer functions contain luminal oscillations.
  • The decomposition into physical and virtual modes aligns with a quantum-field-theoretic picture: the filtered part is on-shell graviton radiation, while the discarded part is off-shell virtual exchange; this connection is an editorial extension not proven in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a boundary-condition-based filtering method to define the physical part of second-order scalar-induced tensor perturbations (SIGWs). In Newtonian gauge the kernel I_X is decomposed into two Bessel-function components I_X,Y and I_X,J plus a remainder Delta I_X that vanishes in the sub-horizon limit. An arbitrary gauge transformation adds an extra piece I_chi built from products of first-order transfer functions. The authors argue that I_chi contains no light-speed sin x or cos x terms at fixed (u,v), violates the Sommerfeld condition, and should be discarded. They conclude that the filtered Omega_GW is finite and gauge-invariant for both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, and they support this with numerical kernel plots in a variety of gauges.

Significance. If fully established, the result would provide a simple and elegant resolution of a long-standing problem in cosmological perturbation theory. The paper is clearly organized, gives explicit formulas for the gauge-transformation kernel I_chi in the comoving and synchronous examples, and shows numerically that the filtered kernels collapse to a common ~1/x behavior in several gauges. The proposed criterion is physically motivated and is not fitted to data. However, the central claim is conditional on a prescription whose physical identification is explicitly left as a conjecture, and the filtering is applied at the level of the fixed-(u,v) kernel rather than to the observable momentum-integrated field. Those gaps are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, bullet list after Eq. (2.10)] The Sommerfeld condition is stated for the field h_ij (Eq. (3.1)), but the filtering is imposed on the fixed-(u,v) kernel I_X(u,v,x) before the momentum integral in Eq. (2.2). A kernel term that contains only sound-speed oscillations at fixed u,v can, in principle, contribute to h_k after integration over d^3p with the projection e_ij p_i p_j and the power spectrum; the late-time phase and decay of the integrated result need not coincide with those of any single term in the integrand. The three bullets in Sec. 3 demonstrate only the pointwise absence of sin x and cos x in I_chi; they do not evaluate the momentum integral. Since this is exactly the step that removes the x^2 and x^4 divergences, the central claim requires either an explicit estimate of the integrated I_chi contribution to Omega_GW or a proof that the momentum integration cannot convert sound-speed kernel oscillations into a light-speed gravitational-wave component.
  2. [Sec. 4 and Sec. 3] The statement that I_chi 'definitely violates the Sommerfeld boundary condition ... regardless of the choice of w, alpha and L' is stronger than what is shown. The argument uses only the generic functional form T_Y(ux)T_Y(vx). If a gauge parameter has a light-speed oscillatory transfer function, for example T_alpha(ux)=sin(ux), then sin(ux)sin(vx) contains cos((u+v)x), which has a light-speed component on the surface u+v=1. The same resonance mechanism that produces sin x in the standard Newtonian-gauge kernel can therefore operate in I_chi for certain gauge choices. The claim is plausible for the standard gauges studied in the paper, where T_alpha and T_L inherit sound-speed oscillations, but it is not proven for arbitrary alpha and L.
  3. [Sec. 3, Figs. 1 and 2] The identification of the Sommerfeld-satisfying part of h_ij with what 'a canonical observer' measures is left as a conjecture: the paper states that a rigorous proof of this correspondence is an interesting direction for future research. Because the filtered Omega_GW is gauge-invariant by construction once I_chi is discarded, the physical content of the result rests entirely on this identification. Without an independent tetrad/observer derivation or an operational definition of the filtered field, the paper establishes conditional gauge invariance of a prescribed projection, not gauge invariance of the observable GW energy density as directly measured or defined from the metric.
  4. [Sec. 3, Figs. 1 and 2] The numerical demonstration in Figs. 1 and 2 plots the kernel at fixed u=v=1, not the momentum-integrated h_k or Omega_GW. The collapse of the fixed-kernel curves after filtering is suggestive but is not by itself evidence that the filtered spectrum is identical to the Newtonian-gauge spectrum after the momentum integral over all u and v.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B] Eqs. (B.3) and (B.4) are split into two display equations in a confusing way; they should be presented as a single equation for I_ISO(u,v,x).
  2. [Appendix A] Eq. (A.2) contains an unbalanced parenthesis in the first line, and the phrase 'vanishes' in Eq. (2.8) should be 'vanish'.
  3. [Sec. 3] The captions of Figs. 1 and 2 should state explicitly which curves correspond to which gauge and should define the 'after filtering' procedure; currently they are not self-contained.
  4. [Sec. 4] The remark about using h'_ij(k)=k h_ij(k) being paradoxical for non-light-speed components is important and deserves a more formal statement, for example a definition of when the replacement is allowed after filtering.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'genearl', 'obatin', and 'Iχ' mixed with 'I_chi'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The gauge-invariance result is largely self-definitional: Eq. (2.9) makes the gauge difference equal to Iχ, and the Sommerfeld filter discards Iχ, so the filtered ΩGW is Newtonian by construction; the independent Sommerfeld criterion is physically motivated, but its link to a canonical observer is left conjectural.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, concluding paragraph of the filtering argument, after Eq. (2.10) and the three bullets]
    "As a result, Iχ(u, v, x) consists of pure unphysical radiation regardless of the choice of w, α and L, indicating that Iχ(u, v, x) definitely violates the Sommerfeld boundary condition in the sub-horizon limit and should be discarded. Thus, the physical ΩGW calculated in any gauge is always contributed by the first two oscillating components in Eq. (2.4) and yields the same result as that in the Newtonian gauge."

    By Eq. (2.9), the difference between any gauge kernel and the Newtonian kernel is exactly Iχ (IX → IX + Iχ). The filter discards Iχ after declaring it unphysical by the Sommerfeld criterion, so the conclusion that the filtered ΩGW in every gauge equals the Newtonian result is the filtering rule itself: remove the gauge-dependent part and the remainder is gauge-invariant. The only independent physical anchor is the Sommerfeld condition, and the paper leaves the equivalence of the filtered quantity to a canonical observer's measurement as a conjecture. The invariance is therefore built into the definition of 'physical GW'; the nontrivial computations concern the surviving filtered kernels, not the gauge-invariance claim, which reduces to Eq. (2.9) plus the discard rule.

full rationale

The central claim is not obtained by fitting to data or by importing a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work; it follows from the proposed definition of the physical part of the second-order tensor mode. Because Eq. (2.9) shows any gauge kernel is the Newtonian kernel plus Iχ, and Section 3 discards Iχ as Sommerfeld-violating, the statement that the filtered ΩGW is gauge-invariant is a direct consequence of the filter's construction rather than an independent physical prediction. This is a real but limited circularity: the Sommerfeld boundary condition is an external, physically motivated criterion, not fitted to the gauge-invariance result, and the authors provide nontrivial analytical and numerical computations of the surviving kernels for adiabatic and isocurvature cases. The paper itself flags the remaining gap: the identification of the filtered quantity with what a canonical observer measures is a conjecture, so the physical content of the invariance claim is exactly as strong as that conjectured identification. Self-citations to [21, 22, 24] supply transformation formulas and earlier divergence scalings, but the central examples re-derive Iχ explicitly (Eqs. 3.2–3.4) and the filtered kernels in Appendix B, so the argument does not reduce to a self-citation chain. A separate weakness, noted here as a correctness risk rather than circularity, is that the Sommerfeld classification is applied to the fixed-(u,v) integrand rather than to the momentum-integrated h_k, so the assertion that Iχ 'definitely violates' the Sommerfeld condition is less established than the paper states. On balance the paper has independent content, but its headline gauge-invariance theorem is in significant part true by construction; score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the derivation is analytic. The load-bearing assumptions are the Sommerfeld filtering criterion and the non-propagation of transfer-function product modes. The canonical observer is an invented construct without independent evidence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The second-order transverse-traceless tensor perturbation h_ij and the master equation (2.1) correctly describe SIGWs in an FLRW background.
    Section 2, Eq. (2.1); this is the standard cosmological perturbation setup inherited from prior work, but the filtering claim depends on this splitting.
  • ad hoc to paper The flat-spacetime Sommerfeld condition, Eq. (3.1), is the correct criterion for identifying physical GWs in a cosmological background.
    Section 3, Eq. (3.1); the paper applies an outgoing-wave condition from flat spacetime to FLRW modes without deriving it from the curved background or from an observable.
  • ad hoc to paper Modes built from products of transfer functions T_Y(ux)T_Y(vx) cannot contribute to the physical GW tail because they lack a Green's function propagation factor.
    Section 3 bullet list; this is asserted with mathematical and QFT analogies, not proven. It is the step that removes I_chi in every gauge.
  • domain assumption The sub-horizon oscillating average x to infinity gives the observed Omega_GW.
    Section 2, Eq. (2.3) and the following paragraph; standard in SIGW computations, assumed without discussion.
  • standard math The transfer functions for adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations from Refs. [30,31] are correct and complete.
    Section 2, Eqs. (2.5) and (2.10); these are prior results cited from the literature.
invented entities (1)
  • Canonical observer
    purpose: Defines which modes of h_ij count as physical gravitational waves; only Sommerfeld-satisfying modes are detected.
    Sections 3 and 4; the observer is a theoretical construct. The paper conjectures, but does not prove, that it corresponds to Newman-Penrose tetrad observers, so there is no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Gauge Invariance of Secondary Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SZTVIARI

@misc{pith2026250113691,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Gauge Invariance of Secondary Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SZTVIARI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13691}
}
read the original abstract

Second-order tensor perturbations induced by primordial fluctuations play a crucial role in probing small-scale physics, but gauge dependence of their energy density has remained a fundamental challenge in cosmological perturbation theory. We address this issue by introducing a boundary condition-based filtering method that extracts physical radiation through the Sommerfeld criterion. We demonstrate that after filtering non-physical modes, the energy density of secondary gravitational waves becomes gauge-invariant and exhibits physically consistent behavior in the sub-horizon limit. This approach provides a unified framework for both adiabatic and isocurvature perturbations, enhancing theoretical predictions and observational signatures of early universe physics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Observable Gravitational Wave Strain at Second Order

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    At second order, the gravitational-wave strain measured by geodesic observers exchanging light pulses is the transverse-traceless metric perturbation in the Newton gauge (h_N^(2)).

  2. General SIGW source for reheating dynamics

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A gauge-invariant source term for scalar-induced gravitational waves is derived for smooth reheating with an inflaton field transitioning into fluids.

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

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [20]

    Inomata and T

    K. Inomata and T. Terada, Gauge Independence of Induced Gravitational Waves , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 023523 [ 1912.00785]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [27]

    On the energy of gravitational waves

    R.-G. Cai, X.-Y. Yang and L. Zhao, On the energy of gravitational waves , Gen. Rel. Grav. 54 (2022) 89 [ 2109.06864]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [1]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run , Phys. Rev. X 6 (2016) 041015 [ 1606.04856]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [2]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9 (2019) 031040 [ 1811.12907]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [3]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run , Phys. Rev. X 11 (2021) 021053 [ 2010.14527]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [4]

    LIGO Scientific, VIRGOcollaboration, GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 022001 [ 2108.01045]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientificcollaboration, GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 13 (2023) 041039 [ 2111.03606]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    Saito and J

    R. Saito and J. Yokoyama, Gravitational wave background as a probe of the primordial black hole abundance , Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 161101 [ 0812.4339]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy , Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) 063001 [1801.05235]. – 12 –

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Z.-C. Chen, C. Yuan and Q.-G. Huang, Pulsar Timing Array Constraints on Primordial Black Holes with NANOGrav 11-Year Dataset , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 251101 [1910.12239]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Vaskonen and H

    V. Vaskonen and H. Veerm¨ ae,Did NANOGrav see a signal from primordial black hole formation?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 051303 [ 2009.07832]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [10]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini and A. Riotto, NANOGrav Data Hints at Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 041303 [ 2009.08268]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Yuan and Q.-G

    C. Yuan and Q.-G. Huang, A topic review on probing primordial black hole dark matter with scalar induced gravitational waves , iScience 24 (2021) 102860 [ 2103.04739]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Dom` enech,Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review , Universe 7 (2021) 398 [2109.01398]

    G. Dom` enech,Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves Review , Universe 7 (2021) 398 [2109.01398]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Dom` enech,Cosmological gravitational waves from isocurvature fluctuations , AAPPS Bull

    G. Dom` enech,Cosmological gravitational waves from isocurvature fluctuations , AAPPS Bull. 34 (2024) 4 [ 2311.02065]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Matarrese, S

    S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach and M. Bruni, Second order perturbations of the Einstein-de Sitter universe , Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 043504 [ astro-ph/9707278]

    1998 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Noh and J.-c

    H. Noh and J.-c. Hwang, Second-order perturbations of the friedmann world model , astro-ph/0305123

    arXiv

  10. [16]

    Spiers, A

    A. Spiers, A. Pound and B. Wardell, Second-order perturbations of the Schwarzschild spacetime: Practical, covariant, and gauge-invariant formalisms , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 064030 [ 2306.17847]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Gong, Analytic Integral Solutions for Induced Gravitational Waves , Astrophys

    J.-O. Gong, Analytic Integral Solutions for Induced Gravitational Waves , Astrophys. J. 925 (2022) 102 [ 1909.12708]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Tomikawa and T

    K. Tomikawa and T. Kobayashi, Gauge dependence of gravitational waves generated at second order from scalar perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 083529 [1910.01880]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [19]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, On the Gauge Invariance of Cosmological Gravitational Waves, JCAP 03 (2020) 014 [ 1911.09689]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen and Q.-G. Huang, Scalar induced gravitational waves in different gauges, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 063018 [ 1912.00885]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Y. Lu, A. Ali, Y. Gong, J. Lin and F. Zhang, Gauge transformation of scalar induced gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 083503 [ 2006.03450]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. Ali, Y. Gong and Y. Lu, Gauge transformation of scalar induced tensor perturbation during matter domination , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 043516 [ 2009.11081]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen and L. Liu, Gauge Dependence of Gravitational Waves Induced by Primordial Isocurvature Fluctuations , 2410.18996

    arXiv

  18. [25]

    Hwang, D

    J.-C. Hwang, D. Jeong and H. Noh, Gauge dependence of gravitational waves generated from scalar perturbations, Astrophys. J. 842 (2017) 46 [ 1704.03500]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Dom` enech and M

    G. Dom` enech and M. Sasaki,Approximate gauge independence of the induced gravitational wave spectrum, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 063531 [ 2012.14016]. – 13 –

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, An Approach to gravitational radiation by a method of spin coefficients, J. Math. Phys. 3 (1962) 566

    1962

  21. [29]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, Semianalytic calculation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly induced from primordial curvature perturbations , Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 123532 [1804.08577]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dom` enech,Induced gravitational waves in a general cosmological background , Int

    G. Dom` enech,Induced gravitational waves in a general cosmological background , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29 (2020) 2050028 [ 1912.05583]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dom` enech and J

    G. Dom` enech and J. Tr¨ ankle,From formation to evaporation: Induced gravitational wave probes of the primordial black hole reheating scenario , 2409.12125

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Passaglia and S. Renaux-Petel,Gravitational waves from dark matter isocurvature, JCAP 03 (2022) 023 [ 2112.10163]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments , Oxford University Press (2007), 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    2007

  26. [34]

    J. Katz, J. Bicak and D. Lynden-Bell, Relativistic conservation laws and integral constraints for large cosmological perturbations, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5957 [gr-qc/0504041]. – 14 –

    1997 arXiv

Pith tools

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