Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 46 references

This paper constructs cosmologies in which the universe's background looks exactly homogeneous and isotropic even though a vector field carries a preferred spatial direction; the direction reappears only in perturbations, where it makes gra

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 · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:55 UTC pith:ZL7CPJVZ

load-bearing objection Solid background, sketchy perturbations: the FLRW construction works, but the scalar-to-GW mixing is not yet demonstrated. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02458 v1 pith:ZL7CPJVZ submitted 2026-08-03 astro-ph.CO gr-qc

Isotropic universes with a preferred direction

Jose Beltr\'an Jim\'enez , Shinji Tsujikawa This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords on-shell isotropyFLRW cosmologypreferred directionvector fieldsgravitational wavescosmological perturbationsscalar-tensor mixingdark energy
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.

The paper builds a class of cosmological models from three vector fields with an internal SO(3) symmetry, in a configuration that at each instant picks out a spatial direction. It claims that, on shell, the equations of motion force the vector sector's energy-momentum tensor to be exactly homogeneous and isotropic, so the metric is an exact FLRW universe with no tuning of the matter initial conditions. The preferred direction is not erased; it simply becomes invisible to the background and reappears in linear perturbations, where it makes propagation direction-dependent and couples scalar, vector, and tensor modes. If the construction is right, background isotropy by itself does not guarantee isotropic perturbation theory, and scalar perturbations can in principle source gravitational waves at first order.

Core claim

The central assertion is that an exactly FLRW background can coexist with a matter sector that has a preferred spatial direction, because isotropy is realized only on shell. For a vector-field Lagrangian of the form (2.4), the conditions (2.8) cancel the anisotropic stress for arbitrary homogeneous configurations, and the temporal vector equations (together with an off-shell identity from Ref. [32]) make the momentum density vanish. The paper shows that the resulting background cosmology looks identical to an isotropic dark sector, while the same hidden direction controls perturbation effects: direction-dependent GW propagation and a linear mixing term (4.4) between a scalar-type vector pert

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a triplet of vector fields A^a_μ with internal SO(3), in the homogeneous configuration A^a_μ = φ^a δ^0_μ + A δ^a_μ. The vector φ^a(t) defines a preferred direction with an instantaneous SO(2) little group. Two facts make isotropy on shell: an off-shell Bianchi identity (2.2) that turns the momentum density T^0_i into a multiple of the temporal vector-field equations, and the coefficient conditions (2.8) — 2a_3 + a_4 = 0 and V_{,X_2} = 0 — that cancel the anisotropic stress φ_i φ_j term without constraining the background trajectory. In perturbation theory, the preferred direction enters through the orientation unit vector n̂(t), producing the direction-dependent te

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on two unproven inputs: an off-shell identity (from a cited companion paper) that makes the momentum density vanish on shell, and the assumption that the scalar-type perturbation S is a genuine propagating mode rather than auxiliary or pure gauge.

What would settle it

Derive the complete quadratic action for S with a specified gauge and check whether its kinetic matrix is invertible; if S is auxiliary or pure gauge, the mixing term (4.4) is removable and no linear scalar-to-GW channel exists. Observationally, look for a linear-order cross-correlation between matter-density (or CMB temperature) fluctuations and GW polarization with an axis aligned to the latent direction; standard FLRW forbids such correlation at first order.

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

If this is right

  • An exactly FLRW background does not imply a rotationally invariant matter sector or helicity decoupling in perturbations; the absence of background shear cannot be used to rule out preferred-direction physics.
  • Linear scalar perturbations can in principle produce gravitational waves and scalar-tensor correlations, whereas in standard FLRW such GWs appear only at second order.
  • Gravitational waves from astrophysical or primordial sources should show direction-dependent propagation and polarization conversion controlled by the angle between the line of sight and the latent direction n̂(t).
  • The same coefficients control the background dark-energy evolution and the perturbation signatures, so a combined analysis of growth, lensing, and GW propagation can test the mechanism using only isotropic background probes.
  • Different cosmological domains could have different spontaneous orientations of the preferred direction, each with an on-shell isotropic background.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If S is indeed dynamical, the model predicts a stochastic or correlated gravitational-wave signal with an angular pattern that tracks n̂(t); future wide-area GW and CMB datasets could look for a linear scalar-tensor cross-correlation well below the second-order level expected in standard cosmology.
  • The conditions (2.8) amount to a one-parameter tuning of the EFT coefficients; whether some symmetry or dynamical mechanism can enforce them without fine-tuning is a question the paper leaves open and is the most direct target for model-building.
  • The same on-shell mechanism could in principle be exported beyond cosmology — e.g., to compact objects whose spherical symmetry is only dynamical or to condensed-matter systems where rotational symmetry emerges on shell — because the construction relies only on the structure of the energy-momentum tensor.
  • The time dependence of n̂(t) cannot be eliminated by a rotating basis, so measurements of GW polarization angles over time could distinguish this scenario from static-anisotropy models.

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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a class of vector-field effective field theories in which a homogeneous configuration A^a_µ = φ^a(t) δ^0_µ + A(t) δ^a_µ possesses a preferred spatial direction, yet, after imposing the coefficient conditions 2a_3+a_4=0 and V_{,X_2}=0, the energy-momentum tensor is shown to be homogeneous and isotropic for every solution on the branch. The central background claim, developed in §II, is that this yields an exact FLRW geometry without fine-tuning initial conditions, because the field equations enforce vanishing momentum density and the conditions cancel anisotropic stress. The same conditions are reinterpreted in §III via a minisuperspace criterion. The paper further claims in §IV that the hidden direction reappears in perturbations: direction-dependent propagation and a linear scalar–tensor mixing term (Eq. 4.4) that could allow scalar-sector perturbations to source gravitational waves. A dark-energy application in Appendix A illustrates a possible late-time background history.

Significance. If the perturbative claims can be substantiated, the paper introduces a conceptually novel route to reconciling an exactly isotropic background with anisotropic perturbation theory. The background construction for the representative Lagrangian (2.4) is explicit and supported by direct algebra: Eqs. (2.7)–(2.10) demonstrate that the anisotropic stress and momentum density vanish on shell under the stated conditions, without selecting a special trajectory. This part is convincing and potentially useful for model building. The more distinctive phenomenological claim—linear scalar-to-GW sourcing through Eq. (4.4)—is, however, not established by the manuscript as written. The full quadratic action, gauge fixing, and kinetic structure of the scalar perturbation S are absent. The paper also does not address stability of the perturbations, as the authors themselves acknowledge in the final paragraph of Appendix A. Thus the significance is conditional: the background mechanism is sound, but the headline observable signatures rest on an unverified propagation assumption.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (4.4)] The claimed linear scalar→tensor mixing channel requires that S, defined by (δA_ij)^scalar = ε_ijk ∂_k S, is a physical propagating mode with a nondegenerate quadratic action. The manuscript never derives the full quadratic Lagrangian L2, never fixes the gauge, and never shows that S is not an auxiliary field whose constraint eliminates it. If S is non-dynamical or pure gauge, Eq. (4.4) is a constraint relating t(±) to other variables, not a source term from an independent scalar perturbation. The authors should provide the complete quadratic action restricted to the branch, including the S kinetic term and the kinetic matrix, or state the relevant gauge and verify nondegeneracy explicitly.
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (4.3)–(4.4)] These expressions are introduced as 'contributions' to the quadratic action after imposing (2.8) and the branch relation, but no derivation is shown. It is unclear whether they are exhaustive or whether additional terms in L_iso or L_⃗ϕ have been omitted, and the normalization of h(λ) and t(λ) is not enough to verify the absence of extra couplings. A reader cannot check the direction-dependent propagation claim without the full quadratic action or at least a precise statement of which terms are being displayed and which are dropped.
  3. [§II, after Eq. (2.10)] The text states that the construction 'applies to more general Lagrangians', but the general off-shell identity (2.2) is quoted from Ref. [32] (with author overlap) rather than proved, and the cancellation of anisotropic stress for general actions is only sketched in §III. For the representative Lagrangian (2.4) the background result is explicitly verified in Eqs. (2.7)–(2.10), so the central example is sound. However, the generality assertion is not load-bearing for the letter's main example, but it is currently overclaimed relative to what is demonstrated.
  4. [Appendix A, final paragraph] The authors correctly note that establishing viability 'additionally requires the absence of ghost and gradient instabilities and consistency with observational bounds.' This is not merely a formality: the observational signatures proposed in §IV rely on the behavior of linear perturbations, and without a stability analysis the discussion of GW sourcing and polarization conversion remains speculative. The manuscript should either include the stability analysis or clearly demarcate the perturbative section as a preliminary sketch.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§II, Eq. (2.7)] The notation δa_i to identify internal and spatial indices is used without explaining how contractions with the metric are treated when internal indices are raised/lowered. This makes some equations (e.g., the definition of X2) harder to parse; a brief clarification would help.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (4.2)] The polar and azimuthal angles θ(t), ϑ(t) are time dependent, but later the text says that ɵe1 and ɵe2 are time independent. This is consistent, but the distinction should be made explicit when discussing the possibility of setting ϑ=0 at a reference time, since the time dependence of ɵn(t) is the key point.
  3. [References] Some references (e.g., [23], [24], [38]) are dated after the paper's submission date or are given as 'in preparation' style entries. The authors should verify the published or arXiv availability of these references before final submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the FLRW branch follows from explicit parameter conditions, and the perturbation signatures are derived from the same action rather than fitted or imported as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained model-building, not a circular reduction. The isotropic background is obtained by imposing conditions (2.8) on the Lagrangian parameters (2a3+a4=0 and V_{,X2}=0), which directly cancel the off-diagonal anisotropic-stress coefficient in Eq. (2.7). These conditions constrain the action, not the background solution, and the representative T^0_i=0 relation is verified explicitly in Eqs. (2.9)-(2.10) rather than assumed. The off-shell identity (2.2) quoted from Ref. [32] is an auxiliary Noether-type identity from diffeomorphism invariance; it does not encode the target FLRW result, and for the representative Lagrangian it is independently demonstrated. The perturbation-sector claims in Eqs. (4.3) and (4.4) are presented as evaluations of the quadratic action after imposing (2.8) and the branch relation (2.11); no data are fitted, no parameter is defined through the quantity being predicted, and the scalar mode S is defined as the helicity-0 component of δA_ij rather than as a fitted output. Whether S is genuinely propagating and whether the mixing term survives the full constraint structure is a technical question about the kinetic matrix and gauge fixing, not a circularity. The appendix's caveat that viability requires checking ghost and gradient instabilities is an omitted analysis, not a circular step. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The construction is transparently an EFT built to have the stated property, and the claimed consequences for perturbations follow from the same action rather than from its own conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central construction rests on two hand-chosen tuning conditions in the action (2a3+a4=0 and V_{,X2}=0) and on an undetermined background orientation n^a(t). It also depends on a cited off-shell identity and on the unproven physicality of the scalar perturbation S. These are model-building choices rather than fitted constants, but they are load-bearing for the claimed exact-FLRW branch and its observational signatures.

free parameters (3)
  • EFT coefficient relation 2a3+a4=0 = 0 (exact tuning)
    Chosen by hand in §II (Eq. 2.8) to cancel the anisotropic stress; without this relation the off-diagonal T^i_j ∝ (2a3+a4) \dot A^2 does not vanish.
  • Potential condition V_{,X2}=0 = V independent of X2
    Second condition in (2.8); removes the -8A^2 V_{,X2} contribution to the anisotropic stress.
  • Orientation n^a(t) = arbitrary time-dependent unit vector
    The background equations determine only φ^2 via (2.11); the unit orientation n^a(t) is undetermined and enters the perturbation action, so any prediction requires choosing it by hand.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Off-shell identity (2.2)–(2.3) from Ref [32] holds for all diffeomorphism-invariant vector-field actions in the class considered.
    Invoked in §II to show T^0_i vanishes on shell after the temporal field equations; cited but not proven.
  • domain assumption Homogeneous ansatz (2.1) with A^a_i = A δ^a_i and internal SO(3) identified with spatial rotations via δ^i_a is the relevant configuration space.
    Defines the sector whose energy-momentum tensor is studied; other field modes are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar perturbation S introduced in §IV is a physical propagating mode with a nondegenerate kinetic term.
    Needed for the claimed linear scalar→GW channel; no quadratic action or gauge fixing is given to verify it.
  • domain assumption Conditions (2.8) and branch relation (2.11) can be satisfied by a generic potential with real φ^2, so the FLRW branch is not empty.
    The paper says 'For a generic potential that allows Eq. (2.11) to be inverted'; if not, the branch is not generic.
  • domain assumption Background equations reduce to the standard Friedmann system (A2)–(A4) with a separately conserved vector-sector density ρ and pressure P.
    Used in the dark-energy application; assumes standard matter and the vector sector interact only gravitationally.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 10683 in / 20810 out tokens · 186232 ms · 2026-08-04T06:55:26.048298+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a class of cosmological scenarios in which a preferred spatial direction in the matter sector coexists with an exactly homogeneous and isotropic Friedmann--Lema\^{\i}tre--Robertson--Walker (FLRW) geometry. The Cosmological Principle is realized on shell, with the vector-field equations enforcing a vanishing momentum density and suitable interactions eliminating the anisotropic stress. Consequently, the construction yields an entire FLRW branch without tuning the matter-field initial conditions. The preferred direction reemerges in perturbations, producing direction-dependent propagation and mixing among scalar, vector, and tensor modes already at linear order. In particular, the mixing opens a linear channel through which perturbations in the scalar sector can in principle source gravitational waves. Our construction thus reveals a new route by which preferred-direction physics can leave observable cosmological signatures while remaining hidden in the background geometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02458 by Jose Beltr\'an Jim\'enez, Shinji Tsujikawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of the density parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Penco, F. Piazza, and R. Rattazzi, Zool- ogy of condensed matter: Framids, ordinary stuff, extra- ordinary stuff, JHEP06, 155, arXiv:1501.03845 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Cervero and L

    J. Cervero and L. Jacobs, Classical Yang-Mills Fields in a Robertson-walker Universe, Phys. Lett. B78, 427 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    D. V. Galtsov and M. S. Volkov, Yang-Mills cosmology: Cold matter for a hot universe, Phys. Lett. B256, 17 (1991)

    1991

  4. [4]

    B. K. Darian and H. P. Kunzle, Cosmological Einstein Yang-Mills equations, J. Math. Phys.38, 4696 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9610026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  5. [5]

    Armendariz-Picon, Could dark energy be vector-like?, JCAP07, 007, arXiv:astro-ph/0405267

    C. Armendariz-Picon, Could dark energy be vector-like?, JCAP07, 007, arXiv:astro-ph/0405267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Golovnev, V

    A. Golovnev, V. Mukhanov, and V. Vanchurin, Vector Inflation, JCAP06, 009, arXiv:0802.2068 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2068

  7. [7]

    Maleknejad and M

    A. Maleknejad and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Gauge-flation: Inflation From Non-Abelian Gauge Fields, Phys. Lett. B 723, 224 (2013), arXiv:1102.1513 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [8]

    Maleknejad and M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [9]

    Maleknejad, M

    A. Maleknejad, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and J. Soda, 6 Gauge Fields and Inflation, Phys. Rept.528, 161 (2013), arXiv:1212.2921 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  10. [10]

    Adshead, E

    P. Adshead, E. Martinec, and M. Wyman, Gauge fields and inflation: Chiral gravitational waves, fluctuations, and the Lyth bound, Phys. Rev. D88, 021302 (2013), arXiv:1301.2598 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    Mehrabi, A

    A. Mehrabi, A. Maleknejad, and V. Kamali, Gaugessence: a dark energy model with early time radiation-like equa- tion of state, Astrophys. Space Sci.362, 53 (2017), arXiv:1510.00838 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    C. M. Nieto and Y. Rodriguez, Massive Gauge-flation, Mod. Phys. Lett. A31, 1640005 (2016), arXiv:1602.07197 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Álvarez, J

    M. Álvarez, J. B. Orjuela-Quintana, Y. Rodriguez, and C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo, Einstein Yang–Mills Higgs dark energy revisited, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 195004 (2019), arXiv:1901.04624 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Garcia-Serna, J

    S. Garcia-Serna, J. B. Orjuela-Quintana, Y. Rodriguez, G. Gomez, and C. A. Valenzuela-Toledo, Dynami- cal shortcomings in the Generalized SU(2) Proca the- ory: challenges for cosmic acceleration, JCAP07, 037, arXiv:2501.17280 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    R. R. Caldwell, C. Devulder, and N. A. Maksimova, Grav- itational wave–Gauge field oscillations, Phys. Rev. D94, 063005 (2016), arXiv:1604.08939 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Beltrán Jiménez, J

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, J. M. Ezquiaga, and L. Heisenberg, Probing cosmological fields with gravitational wave oscil- lations, JCAP04, 027, arXiv:1912.06104 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  17. [17]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, W. Hu, M. Lagos, and M.-X. Lin, Grav- itational wave propagation beyond general relativity: waveform distortions and echoes, JCAP11(11), 048, arXiv:2108.10872 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    K. Aoki, T. Fujita, R. Kawaguchi, and K. Yanagihara, Effective field theory of chiral gravitational waves, JCAP 02, 018, arXiv:2504.19059 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  19. [19]

    de Cesare, M

    M. de Cesare, M. Sakellariadou, and B. Sutton, Multiple- scale analysis of modified gravitational-wave propagation, JCAP11, 071, arXiv:2507.23184 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  20. [20]

    Endlich, A

    S. Endlich, A. Nicolis, and J. Wang, Solid Inflation, JCAP 10, 011, arXiv:1210.0569 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Bucher and D

    M. Bucher and D. N. Spergel, Is the dark matter a solid?, Phys. Rev. D60, 043505 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  22. [22]

    Gruzinov, Elastic inflation, Phys

    A. Gruzinov, Elastic inflation, Phys. Rev. D70, 063518 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404548

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  23. [23]

    Beltrán Jiménez, M

    J. Beltrán Jiménez, M. P. Garrote, F. A. Teppa Pannia, and S. Tsujikawa, A solid unification of the dark sector, arXiv:2606.27290 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Esposito, A

    A. Esposito, A. Nicolis, and R. Penco, Effective Field Theories for Material Media, arXiv:2607.06666 [hep-th] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Piazza, D

    F. Piazza, D. Pirtskhalava, R. Rattazzi, and O. Simon, Gaugid inflation, JCAP11, 041, arXiv:1706.03402 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    D. A. Gomes, J. Beltrán Jiménez, and T. S. Koivisto, Gen- eral parallel cosmology, JCAP12, 010, arXiv:2309.08554 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  27. [27]

    K. Aoki, J. Beltrán Jiménez, and D. Figueruelo, Some disquisitions on cosmological 2-form dualities, JCAP04, 059, arXiv:2212.12427 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    J. A. R. Cembranos, C. Hallabrin, A. L. Maroto, and S. J. N. Jareno, Isotropy theorem for cosmological vector fields, Phys. Rev. D86, 021301 (2012), arXiv:1203.6221 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  29. [29]

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, and S. J. Núñez Jareño, Isotropy theorem for cosmological Yang-Mills theories, Phys. Rev. D87, 043523 (2013), arXiv:1212.3201 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, and S. J. Núñez Jareño, Isotropy theorem for arbitrary-spin cosmological fields, JCAP03, 042, arXiv:1311.1402 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, and S. J. Núñez Jareño, Perturbations of ultralight vector field dark matter, JHEP 02, 064, arXiv:1611.03793 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    J. B. Orjuela-Quintana and J. Beltrán Jiménez, Horn- deski in motion, JCAP04, 051, arXiv:2412.12018 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner, The Dynam- ics of general relativity, Gen. Rel. Grav.40, 1997 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0405109

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  34. [34]

    A. D. Miravet and A. L. Maroto, Imprint of ultralight vector fields on gravitational wave propagation, Phys. Rev. D103, 123546 (2021), arXiv:2012.07505 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    A. D. Miravet and A. L. Maroto, Vector dark radia- tion and gravitational-wave polarization, JCAP09, 014, arXiv:2203.07125 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    T. F. Chase and D. López Nacir, Ultralight vector dark matter, anisotropies, and cosmological adiabatic modes, Phys. Rev. D109, 083521 (2024), arXiv:2311.09373 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    T. F. Chase, M. Leizerovich, D. López Nacir, and S. Lan- dau, Cosmological perturbations with ultralight vector dark matter fields: Numerical implementation in class, Phys. Rev. D111, 103520 (2025), arXiv:2408.12052 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    T. F. Chase and D. López Nacir, Cosmological Grav- itational Waves from Ultralight Vector Dark Matter, arXiv:2604.21080 [astro-ph.CO] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Cheung, P

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore, The Effective Field Theory of Inflation, JHEP03, 014, arXiv:0709.0293 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Gubitosi, F

    G. Gubitosi, F. Piazza, and F. Vernizzi, The Effec- tive Field Theory of Dark Energy, JCAP02, 032, arXiv:1210.0201 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    Tsujikawa, The effective field theory of inflation/dark energy and the Horndeski theory, Lect

    S. Tsujikawa, The effective field theory of inflation/dark energy and the Horndeski theory, Lect. Notes Phys.892, 97 (2015), arXiv:1404.2684 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    Finelli, G

    B. Finelli, G. Goon, E. Pajer, and L. Santoni, The Effec- tive Theory of Shift-Symmetric Cosmologies, JCAP05, 060, arXiv:1802.01580 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    S. A. Salcedo, T. Colas, and E. Pajer, The open effective field theory of inflation, JHEP10, 248, arXiv:2404.15416 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    A. A. Abolhasani, M. Akhshik, R. Emami, and H. Firouz- jahi, Primordial Statistical Anisotropies: The Effective Field Theory Approach, JCAP03, 020, arXiv:1511.03218 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Rostami, A

    T. Rostami, A. Karami, and H. Firouzjahi, Effective field theory of statistical anisotropies for primordial bispectrum and gravitational waves, JCAP06, 039, arXiv:1702.03744 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    J.-O. Gong, T. Noumi, G. Shiu, J. Soda, K. Takahashi, and M. Yamaguchi, Effective Field Theory of Anisotropic Inflation and Beyond, JCAP08, 027, arXiv:1910.11533 [hep-th]. 7 Appendix A: An application to dark energy To illustrate how the on-shell sector can be embedded in a late-time cosmology, we couple it to Einstein gravity and standard matter, S= Z d4...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910