Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 65 references

Classical ultralight dark-matter condensates do not alter gravitational-wave propagation; squeezed-state quantum pressure can, but the resonant boost is tiny.

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 11:47 UTC pith:U3O7SOG7

load-bearing objection Solid 2PI derivation showing the homogeneous ULDM condensate drops out of linear GW propagation; the ≲10^{-12} squeezing-resonance bound is real but sits on a stricter mid-point/cutoff assumption than the natural non-relativistic one. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27133 v1 pith:U3O7SOG7 submitted 2026-07-29 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc

Quantum Field Theory Of Cosmological Perturbations Induced By Ultralight Dark Matter

Tomislav Prokopec , Marco Vecchioni This is my paper
classification hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords ultralight dark mattercosmological perturbationsgravitational wavesparametric resonancesqueezed states2PI effective actionadiabatic approximationmatter-dominated era
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.

During the matter-dominated era, dark matter drives the growth of primordial perturbations. Ultralight scalar dark matter is usually treated as a classical condensate. This paper builds a first-principles quantum field theory for how a general Gaussian state of that field sources linear cosmological perturbations, keeping the quantum nature of the matter. After gauge fixing, the classical condensate drops out of the gravitational-wave equation entirely, contrary to earlier claims. What remains is a time-dependent effective mass for the graviton that comes from the quantum pressure of a squeezed state. That mass can produce parametric resonance in specific primordial gravitational-wave modes. For non-relativistic ultralight dark matter at matter-radiation equality and a power-law squeezing spectrum, the relative amplification stays below about 10^{-12} across the mass window 10^{-21} to 10^{-24} eV, too small for foreseeable detection.

Core claim

After gauge fixing, the homogeneous classical ULDM condensate has no influence on gravitational-wave propagation: its four-point self-energy cancels against corresponding local terms in the Einstein tensor by background symmetries. The residual effect is a time-dependent graviton effective mass generated by the quantum pressure of the squeezed state, which can drive parametric resonance. Under a power-law squeezing spectrum and non-relativistic conditions at equality, that resonant growth is negligible (relative enhancement ≲ 10^{-12}) for masses m ∼ 10^{-21}–10^{-24} eV.

What carries the argument

The closed semiclassical graviton equation obtained from the 2PI effective action on the Schwinger–Keldysh contour, reduced in the adiabatic (WKB) regime with the mid-point prescription for non-local phases. After longitudinal-gauge fixing the transverse-traceless sector becomes a Mathieu equation whose oscillatory mass is set by the local squeezing integral I^S_2.

Load-bearing premise

The mid-point approximation that replaces non-local adiabatic phases by their values at the average time, together with the stricter ultraviolet cutoff needed to keep the first-order phase error small; if that approximation fails, neither the claimed suppression of non-local terms nor the Mathieu resonance analysis is controlled.

What would settle it

A numerical evaluation of the full non-local retarded self-energy (without the mid-point approximation) for a pure squeezed power-law spectrum that yields a resonant enhancement larger than ∼10^{-12} for any mode that enters the horizon after equality in the stated mass window.

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

If this is right

  • A purely coherent (classical-condensate) treatment of ULDM cannot produce an observable imprint on primordial gravitational waves at linear order.
  • Any detectable quantum signature in tensor modes during matter domination would have to come from the two-point statistics (occupation number or squeezing), not from the one-point condensate.
  • The pure squeezed state supplies an absolute upper bound on resonant growth; mixed states produce even weaker resonances.
  • Scalar Bardeen potentials remain coupled to the condensate and to squeezing, so they may still carry distinctive oscillatory signatures even when tensors do not.
  • Existing PTA-style bounds that rely on a classical oscillating condensate sourcing gravitational waves need re-examination in light of the cancellation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the mid-point approximation is only marginally valid near equality, residual non-local contributions could accumulate over many Hubble times and slightly loosen the 10^{-12} bound without overturning the qualitative cancellation of the condensate.
  • The same 2PI-plus-adiabatic pipeline can be ported to the radiation-to-matter transition or to super-horizon modes, where the condensate cancellation may no longer hold and larger effects could appear.
  • A pure squeezed initial state is the most optimistic case for detection; any realistic decoherence during radiation domination would push the signal still lower, reinforcing the null result for tensors.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a first-principles quantum-field-theoretic treatment of linear cosmological perturbations during matter domination sourced by ultralight scalar dark matter in a general Gaussian state (condensate, occupation number, and squeezing). Working in the Schwinger–Keldysh/2PI formalism with a classically treated graviton, the authors derive a closed linearized graviton equation sourced by background matter correlators, renormalize the one-loop vacuum self-energy in dimensional regularization with the counterterm action (2.45), and evaluate state-dependent contributions in the adiabatic (WKB) regime using a mid-point prescription for non-local terms. Two main results are claimed: (i) after gauge fixing, the homogeneous ULDM condensate has no effect on gravitational-wave propagation, because its four-point self-energy cancels against gravitational-sector terms rewritten via the background Einstein equation (eqs. 2.50–2.53, 4.8) — a consequence of background FLRW symmetries; (ii) the time-dependent effective graviton mass induced by mode squeezing produces a Mathieu-type parametric resonance for specific tensor modes, but the relative enhancement is bounded at ≲10⁻¹² for non-relativistic ULDM at matter–radiation equality with power-law spectra in the range m∼10⁻²¹–10⁻²⁴ eV (eq. 5.55). Scalar-potential equations are derived but their analysis is deferred.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes two contributions of note. First, it proves that a homogeneous ULDM condensate drops out of the linearized GW equation — not as an approximation but as a structural cancellation between the condensate four-point self-energy and gravitational-sector terms enforced by the background symmetries (a Noether–Ward identity). This corrects, or at least sharply delimits, earlier claims of condensate-driven GW resonance, and clarifies that any ULDM imprint on tensor modes must come from two-point statistics. Second, it identifies a genuinely quantum mechanism — squeezing-induced oscillatory graviton mass driving parametric resonance — and delivers a falsifiable, and as it turns out strongly negative, quantitative bound (≲10⁻¹²) on the enhancement under stated assumptions. The work ships an explicit dimensional-regularization renormalization of the graviton self-energy on FLRW with a full counterterm action, causal (retarded-only) in-in dynamics, and a resonance exponent whose derivation can be checked independently (the narrow-resonance crossing integral and the m^{11/2} z_eq^{3/2} k^{−17/2} scaling of eq. (5.52) reproduce correctly). The negative result,

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, eq. (5.4); App. C] §5, eq. (5.4) vs (5.2); App. C, eqs. (C.9)–(C.11): the evaluation of I^S_2 retains the phase only to first order in k²/(a²m²), requiring k_UV/a_eq ≪ √(mH_eq) — for m ~ 10⁻²² eV roughly three orders of magnitude tighter than the natural non-relativistic condition (5.2). The relaxation of (5.4) to (5.2) via higher-order phase terms is asserted but not quantified: higher orders add k-dependent frequency dispersion that can dephase the resonance and change the Mathieu analysis. The abstract and §6 state the 10⁻¹² bound for 'non-relativistic ULDM at equality' without this qualification. Please (a) state the regime of validity of (5.55) explicitly in the abstract/conclusions, and (b) quantify the error or dephasing when (5.2) holds but (5.4) fails.
  2. [§5, eqs. (5.7)–(5.13); App. D] §5, eqs. (5.7)–(5.13); App. D: the neglect of the non-local self-energy — needed to reduce (4.10) to the Mathieu equation (5.42) — rests on the adiabatic ansatz (5.7) with an undetermined exponent α, on ω(k;t̄)≈ω(k;t), and on ∂_t f ~ H f. Near the special frequencies (5.11)–(5.12) the suppression is only k²_UV(t−t_eq)/(a²m), whose time domain of validity is not stated, and the possible overlap of these non-local resonant frequencies with the local Mathieu band (k≈am/3) is not discussed. Since this is the step that converts the integro-differential equation into the solvable local one, please give explicit bounds on the time window and α-independence of the estimate, and state the resulting uncertainty on (5.55).
  3. [§5.2.3, eqs. (5.54)–(5.55)] §5.2.3, eqs. (5.54)–(5.55): the headline number 10⁻¹² is obtained by setting P_DM,0 ~ 10⁻¹⁸ eV⁴, i.e. w ~ 1 at equality. But w ~ 1 at equality violates the non-relativistic assumption (5.21) under which the power-law expansions of I^N_2 and I^S_2 (eqs. (5.3)–(5.5)) — and hence the Mathieu equation itself — are derived. The bound is presented as 'generous', but strictly it is an extrapolation outside the controlled regime; a self-consistent evaluation with w_eq ≪ 1 would yield a parametrically smaller enhancement. Please discuss this self-consistency and, if possible, quote the bound obtained at the edge of the controlled regime (e.g. w_eq ≲ 0.1).
minor comments (7)
  1. [§5, eqs. (5.10) and (5.41)] m_S is defined twice with different content: eq. (5.10) (coefficient n_S+7, arising from the p⁶-weighted non-local integral σ_S in (D.23)–(D.24)) and eq. (5.41) (conformal-time definition entering the Mathieu equation, tied to the n_S+5 local frequency of (5.5)). Please distinguish the two symbols.
  2. [Abstract; §4.1] The abstract and §1 state the condensate-decoupling result is 'contrary to previous claims' [15–17]. Those works treat inhomogeneous halo configurations and scalar-tensor couplings, whereas the cancellation (2.53)/(4.8) holds for a spatially homogeneous condensate on FLRW. An explicit sentence delineating the scope would prevent the conflict from being overstated.
  3. [§3.3.1–3.4, eqs. (3.46)–(3.47)] The choice c^f_4 = −4F_m/(16π)² (below (3.22) and (B.40)) nullifies the vacuum energy-momentum tensor (3.46)–(3.47). This is a renormalization (cosmological-constant scheme) condition and should be identified as such, since it is a physical input rather than a derived result.
  4. [Various] Typos/notation: 'FLR W' (spurious space) throughout; 'Lichnerowitz' (App. A, above (A.4)) vs 'Lichnerowicz'; 'on a on a perturbed' (§1); 'the vertices also acquires this index' (App. A); 'Using the the definition' (§5.2.2); '4X_{t=i}' in (3.39); 'palindrome function' in App. B.1.4 presumably means 'multivalued function'; Fig. 1 caption 'one graviton leg needs to be truncated' is unclear.
  5. [§2.4, eq. (2.53)] Eq. (2.53): it would help to state explicitly that the cancellation is an on-shell identity at background level, i.e. it uses the background Einstein equation (2.32); this is the precise sense in which it is a Noether–Ward consequence, as invoked again in §4.1.
  6. [§5.2.3, eq. (5.53)] Eq. (5.53): the numerical range k ≳ ma_eq ∼ 10⁻²⁴–10⁻²⁷ eV and the mapping to λ ≲ 10²–10⁵ Mpc should be double-checked for units and for consistency with the sub-horizon requirement kη≫1 used in the Floquet treatment; a short table of the resonant k-window versus m would aid the reader.
  7. [§6] Given the relevance to PTA constraints, the discussion of [65, 69, 70] in §6 could include one or two more recent PTA–ULDM analyses so readers can locate the scalar-sector claim (left to future work) in the current literature.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: condensate decoupling is derived algebraically in-paper; the ≲10^{-12} bound is a constrained upper estimate under stated ansatzes, not a fit renamed as prediction.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§6 Conclusions; also §2.4 / eqs. 2.52–2.53 and §4.1]
    "This cancellation can be interpreted as a consequence of the Noether-Ward identity [60] and implies that any effect of the condensate on the propagation of primordial gravitational wave modes disappears already at the linear level"

    Reference [60] is by the same lead author (Prokopec). However the cancellation itself is derived in-paper from the FLRW Lichnerowicz operator plus EMT rearrangement (2.52–2.53) and the TT projection of (4.8) before the citation is invoked; the citation only supplies an interpretive label. Not load-bearing for the claim, hence only a minor self-citation flag.

full rationale

The paper’s two central results do not reduce to their inputs by construction. (1) Condensate decoupling from GW propagation is obtained by explicit cancellation of the condensate 4-point self-energy against gravitational-sector EMT terms (eqs. 2.52–2.53) and by the TT projection that kills remaining condensate 3-point structures in (4.8); the Noether–Ward citation [60] (same lead author) is only interpretive framing after the algebra is shown, so it is not load-bearing. (2) The parametric-resonance enhancement bound uses external cosmological inputs (Ω_DM, w_DM≪1 at equality, κ², H_eq) to fix N_0,n_N and P_DM,0, leaves S_0,n_S free within the purity inequality, and reports an upper bound for the pure squeezed case under an explicit power-law ansatz and the mid-point/first-order phase expansion. Those are stated approximations and external constraints, not a parameter fitted to the target and then “predicted.” No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported to forbid alternatives. Score 1 only for the non-load-bearing same-author Noether–Ward citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard QFT/cosmology machinery (2PI, in-in, adiabatic modes, Mathieu/Floquet) plus several domain and paper-specific working assumptions that control the source terms and the size of the resonance. No new particle or force is postulated; ULDM is an existing candidate. Free parameters are spectral amplitudes/indices and finite counterterms, constrained partly by Ω_DM and w_DM but not fitted to produce the GW null result.

free parameters (5)
  • Occupation amplitude N_0 and index n_N = Expressed in terms of Ω_DM, w_DM,0, Ω_cl, k_UV
    Parameterize the power-law occupation spectrum; fixed by present-day Ω_DM, w_DM,0, Ω_cl and k_UV via eqs. 5.23, not by GW data.
  • Squeezing amplitude S_0 and index n_S
    Unconstrained by time-averaged ρ,P; bounded by purity S²≤N(N+1). Pure-state choice S_0≈N_0, n_S≈n_N maximizes resonance.
  • UV cutoff k_UV of N_k and S_k = k_UV/a_eq ≪ m (and ≪√(m H_eq) for leading phase)
    Set by production mechanism; required to satisfy non-relativistic and stricter phase conditions (5.2, 5.4).
  • Condensate amplitude ϕ_0 and phase θ_0
    Initial misalignment parameters; enter scalar potentials and background ρ_cl but cancel from the TT GW equation.
  • Finite counterterm coefficients c^f_i (i=1,2,3)
    Finite parts of higher-curvature and m²R counterterms after subtracting 1/(D−4) poles; to be fixed by measurement; absorbed μ dependence.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic (WKB) approximation in the matter sector: ε_m = O(H/(a m)) ≪ 1, so O(H) terms in vertices and propagators may be dropped (eq. 3.1).
    Justified numerically at z_eq for m∼10^{-21}–10^{-24} eV (ε_m∼10^{-7}–10^{-4}) but excludes radiation-era and near-horizon regimes.
  • ad hoc to paper Mid-point working assumption for non-local phases and frequencies (eq. 3.12).
    Enables analytic self-energy; authors cite effective-action support [50] but do not prove error bounds for the graviton equation.
  • domain assumption ULDM initial state is Gaussian (occupation, squeezing, condensate only); non-Gaussianities neglected.
    Standard for weakly coupled production; stated as leading-order expectation (§3.2).
  • domain assumption Graviton loops and full quantum gravity backreaction are negligible compared with DM one-loop self-energy during matter era.
    Parametric argument Ω_GW, Ω_ψ ≪ Ω_DM (footnote in §2.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Power-law spectra with Gaussian UV cutoff for N_k and S_k (eq. 5.1); ϕ_k=0.
    Chosen for analytic local integrals; production-mechanism-specific spectra could differ.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic ULDM at matter-radiation equality: w_DM(z_eq)≪1 and k_UV/a_eq≪m (and stricter √(m H_eq) for phase).
    Required for structure formation consistency [66] and for the local-integral expansions used in the resonance bound.
  • domain assumption Analysis restricted to sub-horizon modes; super-Hubble evolution deferred.
    Gradient terms need ∥∂_i∥≫H for adiabatic vertices (§3.1).
  • standard math Standard 2PI effective action, Schwinger-Keldysh causality, and dimensional regularization of one-loop graviton self-energy.
    Textbook nonequilibrium QFT and curved-space renormalization tools.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 90929 in / 4442 out tokens · 88581 ms · 2026-07-30T11:47:54.271624+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The growth of primordial perturbations during the matter-dominated era is primarily driven by dark matter. Ultralight scalar fields (ULDM) are a promising candidate for this role, conventionally modeled as operating in a classical, high-occupation regime. In this work, we develop a first-principles field-theoretic framework to investigate the impact of ULDM on linear cosmological perturbations during matter domination, explicitly retaining its quantum nature. Deriving a closed equation for the graviton field dynamics, we compute and regularize its source terms for a generic Gaussian initial state of the ULDM field within the adiabatic (WKB) approximation, employing the middle-point working assumption for non-local terms. After gauge-fixing we find that, contrary to previous claims, the classical condensate of ULDM has no influence on gravitational wave propagation. However, the time-dependent graviton effective mass induced by quantum pressure of the squeezed state can drive parametric resonance in specific primordial gravitational wave modes. We demonstrate this growth is negligible for non-relativistic ULDM at matter-radiation equality under the assumption of a power-law squeezing spectrum for masses in the range $m \sim 10^{-21}{-}10^{-24}$ eV.

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

65 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,Res

    H. Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,Res. Astron. Astrophys.23(2023) 075024 [2306.16216]. [3]EPTA, InPTA:collaboration,The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals,Astron. Astrophys.678(2023) A50 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [4]

    Miles et al.,The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope,Mon

    M.T. Miles et al.,The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the first search for gravitational waves with the MeerKAT radio telescope,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536(2024) 1489 [2412.01153]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [5]

    Dawson and N

    K. Dawson and N. Palanque-Delabrouille,DESI2024: Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey, presentation of Year 1 results,JCAP01(2025) 123

    2025

  4. [6]

    Mukhanov and G.V

    V.F. Mukhanov and G.V. Chibisov,Quantum Fluctuations and a Nonsingular Universe, JETP Lett.33(1981) 532. [7]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. V. CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A5 [1907.12875]. [8]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. X. Constraints on inflation,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A10 [1807.06211]. [9]DES,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1981

  5. [10]

    Chongchitnan and G

    S. Chongchitnan and G. Efstathiou,Prospects for direct detection of primordial gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 083511 [0602594]. [11]Planckcollaboration,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys. 641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  6. [12]

    Ferreira,Ultra-light dark matter,Astron

    E.G.M. Ferreira,Ultra-light dark matter,Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29(2021) 7 [2005.03254]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [13]

    Hui, J.P

    L. Hui, J.P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten,Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 043541 [1610.08297]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [14]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel,Primordial black holes as dark matter candidates,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48(2022) 1 [2110.02821]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [15]

    Delgado,Gravitational wave resonance in ultralight dark matter halos,Phys

    P.C.M. Delgado,Gravitational wave resonance in ultralight dark matter halos,Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) 123539 [2309.09946]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [16]

    Y.-F. Cai, G. Dom` enech, A. Ganz, J. Jiang, C. Lin and B. Wang,Parametric resonance of gravitational waves in general scalar-tensor theories,JCAP10(2024) 027 [2311.18546]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [17]

    Jenks and M

    L. Jenks and M. Kamionkowski,Gravitational-Wave Propagation Through the Axiverse, 3, 2026 [2603.15838]

    arXiv 2026

  12. [18]

    Friedrich and T

    P. Friedrich and T. Prokopec,Scalar field dark matter in hybrid approach,Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 083504 [1704.03340]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [19]

    Friedrich and T

    P. Friedrich and T. Prokopec,Kinetic theory and classical limit for real scalar quantum field in curved spacetime,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 025010 [1805.02767]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  14. [20]

    Friedrich and T

    P. Friedrich and T. Prokopec,Field-theoretic approach to large-scale structure formation, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 103527 [1909.10049]. – 92 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [21]

    Hwang and H

    J.-c. Hwang and H. Noh,Oscillating gravitational potential due to ultralight axion: Linear theory, 2022 [2111.07502]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  16. [22]

    Kalia,Probing the state of ultralight dark matter via its density fluctuations,Phys

    S. Kalia,Probing the state of ultralight dark matter via its density fluctuations,Phys. Rev. D 113(2026) 043534 [2504.16990]

    arXiv 2026

  17. [23]

    Albrecht, P

    A. Albrecht, P. Ferreira, M. Joyce and T. Prokopec,Inflation and squeezed quantum states, Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 4807 [9303001]

    1994

  18. [24]

    Polarski and A.A

    D. Polarski and A.A. Starobinsky,Semiclassicality and decoherence of cosmological perturbations,Class. Quant. Grav.13(1996) 377 [9504030]

    1996

  19. [25]

    Brandenberger, V.F

    R.H. Brandenberger, V.F. Mukhanov and T. Prokopec,Entropy of a classical stochastic field and cosmological perturbations,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 3606 [9206005]

    1992

  20. [26]

    Brandenberger, T

    R.H. Brandenberger, T. Prokopec and V.F. Mukhanov,The entropy of the gravitational field, Phys. Rev. D48(1993) 2443 [9208009]

    1993

  21. [27]

    Cornwall, R

    J.M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis,Effective Action for Composite Operators,Phys. Rev. D10(1974) 2428

    1974

  22. [28]

    Schwinger,Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator,J

    J.S. Schwinger,Brownian motion of a quantum oscillator,J. Math. Phys.2(1961) 407

    1961

  23. [29]

    Keldysh,Diagram Technique for Nonequilibrium Processes,Sov

    L.V. Keldysh,Diagram Technique for Nonequilibrium Processes,Sov. Phys. JETP20(1965) 1018

    1965

  24. [30]

    A. Ota, M. Sasaki and Y. Wang,One-loop tensor power spectrum from an excited scalar field during inflation,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 043542 [2211.12766]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [31]

    A. Ota, M. Sasaki and Y. Wang,One-loop thermal radiation exchange in gravitational wave power spectrum,JHEP03(2025) 055 [2310.19071]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [32]

    Fr¨ ob, D

    M.B. Fr¨ ob, D. Glavan, P. Meda and I. Sawicki,One-loop correction to primordial tensor modes during radiation era,JHEP12(2025) 074 [2504.02609]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [33]

    Sasaki and J

    M. Sasaki and J. Wang,Unveiling primordial black hole relics through induced gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D114(2026) 023512 [2512.22450]

    arXiv 2026

  28. [34]

    Glavan, J

    D. Glavan, J. Klari´ c, P. Klose and I. Sawicki,On the importance of radiation-era initial conditions for tensor perturbations,JHEP05(2026) 088 [2602.03961]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [35]

    Baghouzian, A

    S. Baghouzian, A. Fennema and T. Prokopec,Graviton dynamics in scalar quantum electrodynamics during the electroweak transition, 2026, to appear

    2026

  30. [36]

    Liu and T

    L. Liu and T. Prokopec,Graviton self-energy from a massive, nonminimally coupled scalar in radiation era, 2026, to appear

    2026

  31. [37]

    Berges,Introduction to Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory,AIP Conf

    J. Berges,Introduction to Nonequilibrium Quantum Field Theory,AIP Conf. Proc.739 (2004) 3 [0409233]

    2004

  32. [38]

    Berges and J

    J. Berges and J. Cox,Thermalization of quantum fields from time reversal invariant evolution equations,Phys. Lett. B517(2001) 369 [0006160]

    2001

  33. [39]

    Prokopec, O

    T. Prokopec, O. Tornkvist and R.P. Woodard,One loop vacuum polarization in a locally de Sitter background,Annals Phys.303(2003) 251 [0205130]

    2003

  34. [40]

    Baumgart and R

    M. Baumgart and R. Sundrum,Manifestly Causal In-In Perturbation Theory about the Interacting Vacuum,JHEP03(2021) 080 [2010.10785]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [41]

    Parker,Particle creation and particle number in an expanding universe,J

    L. Parker,Particle creation and particle number in an expanding universe,J. Phys. A45 (2012) 374023 [1205.5616]. – 93 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  36. [42]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, M. Galanis, L. Lehner, J.O. Thompson and K. Van Tilburg, Large-misalignment mechanism for the formation of compact axion structures: Signatures from the QCD axion to fuzzy dark matter,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 083014 [1909.11665]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [43]

    Arias, D

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,WISPy Cold Dark Matter,JCAP06(2012) 013 [1201.5902]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  38. [44]

    Hui,Wave Dark Matter,Ann

    L. Hui,Wave Dark Matter,Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.59(2021) 247 [2101.11735]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [45]

    Lyth and D

    D.H. Lyth and D. Roberts,Cosmological consequences of particle creation during inflation, Phys. Rev. D57(1998) 7120 [9609441]

    1998

  40. [46]

    Herring, D

    N. Herring, D. Boyanovsky and A.R. Zentner,Nonadiabatic cosmological production of ultralight dark matter,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 083516 [1912.10859]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [47]

    Ford,Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation,Phys

    L.H. Ford,Gravitational Particle Creation and Inflation,Phys. Rev. D35(1987) 2955

    1987

  42. [48]

    Ghoshal, M.Y

    A. Ghoshal, M.Y. Khlopov, Z. Lalak and S. Porey,Postinflationary production of particle dark matter: Hilltop and Coleman-Weinberg inflation,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 063037 [2306.09409]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [49]

    Anderson, C

    P.R. Anderson, C. Molina-Paris and E. Mottola,Short distance and initial state effects in inflation: Stress tensor and decoherence,Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 043515 [0504134]

    2005

  44. [50]

    Canevarolo and T

    S. Canevarolo and T. Prokopec,Gradient corrections to the quantum effective action,JHEP 12(2024) 037 [2208.12142]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [51]

    Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory and structure formation, inCosmology 2000, pp

    E. Bertschinger,Cosmological perturbation theory and structure formation, inCosmology 2000, pp. 1–25, 1, 2001 [0101009]

    2000

  46. [52]

    Mukhanov, H.A

    V.F. Mukhanov, H.A. Feldman and R.H. Brandenberger,Theory of cosmological perturbations,215(1992) 203

    1992

  47. [53]

    Bardeen,Gauge Invariant Cosmological Perturbations,Phys

    J.M. Bardeen,Gauge Invariant Cosmological Perturbations,Phys. Rev. D22(1980) 1882

    1980

  48. [54]

    Peebles,The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press (1980)

    P.J. Peebles,The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe, Princeton University Press (1980)

    1980

  49. [55]

    A. Buonanno,TASI lectures on gravitational waves from the early universe, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 2002): Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Quest for Physics Beyond the Standard Model(s), pp. 855–892, 3, 2003 [0303085]

    2002

  50. [56]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins,Statistics of cosmic microwave background polarization,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 7368 [9611125]

    1997

  51. [57]

    Zaldarriaga and U

    M. Zaldarriaga and U. Seljak,An all sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 1830 [9609170]

    1997

  52. [58]

    Jiang and T

    H. Jiang and T. Namikawa,Impact of the reionization history on constraining primordial gravitational waves in future all-sky cosmic microwave background experiments,Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 083555 [2412.15849]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [59]

    Steier, S

    A. Steier, S. Ghosh and J. Delabrouille,Unbiased primordial gravitational wave inference from the CMB with SMICA,JCAP02(2026) 080 [2510.26767]

    arXiv 2026

  54. [60]

    Prokopec,Gravitational Noether-Ward identities for scalar field, 2025 [2512.22958]

    T. Prokopec,Gravitational Noether-Ward identities for scalar field, 2025 [2512.22958]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [61]

    Jimu and T

    D. Jimu and T. Prokopec,Uniqueness of gravitational constant at low energies from the connection between spin-2 and spin-0 sectors,JHEP04(2025) 134 [2410.01449]. – 94 –

    arXiv 2025

  56. [62]

    Hill,On the part of the motion of the lunar perigee which is a function of the mean motions of the sun and moon,Acta Mathematica8(1886) 1

    G.W. Hill,On the part of the motion of the lunar perigee which is a function of the mean motions of the sun and moon,Acta Mathematica8(1886) 1

  57. [63]

    Mathieu,M´ emoire sur le mouvement vibratoire d’une membrane de forme elliptique, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees13(1868) 137

    ´E. Mathieu,M´ emoire sur le mouvement vibratoire d’une membrane de forme elliptique, Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees13(1868) 137

  58. [64]

    Magnus and S

    W. Magnus and S. Winkler,Hill’s Equation, Dover Books on Mathematics Series, Dover Publications (2004)

    2004

  59. [65]

    Khmelnitsky and V

    A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov,Pulsar timing signal from ultralight scalar dark matter, JCAP02(2014) 019 [1309.5888]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [66]

    M. Kopp, C. Skordis, D.B. Thomas and S. Ili´ c,Dark Matter Equation of State through Cosmic History,Phys. Rev. Lett.120(2018) 221102 [1802.09541]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  61. [67]

    Bogolˆ ubov,Asymptotic Methods in the Theory of Non-linear Oscillations, International monographs on advanced mathematics and physics, Hindustan Publishing Corporation (1961)

    N. Bogolˆ ubov,Asymptotic Methods in the Theory of Non-linear Oscillations, International monographs on advanced mathematics and physics, Hindustan Publishing Corporation (1961)

    1961

  62. [68]

    Shtanov, J.H

    Y. Shtanov, J.H. Traschen and R.H. Brandenberger,Universe reheating after inflation,Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 5438 [9407247]

    1995

  63. [69]

    Porayko and K.A

    N.K. Porayko and K.A. Postnov,Constraints on ultralight scalar dark matter from pulsar timing,Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 062008 [1408.4670]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [70]

    Porayko et al.,Parkes Pulsar Timing Array constraints on ultralight scalar-field dark matter,Phys

    N.K. Porayko et al.,Parkes Pulsar Timing Array constraints on ultralight scalar-field dark matter,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 102002 [1810.03227]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [71]

    Barroso Mancha, T

    M. Barroso Mancha, T. Prokopec and B. Swiezewska,Field-theoretic derivation of bubble-wall force,JHEP01(2021) 070 [2005.10875]. 95

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021