Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Curvature Perturbations in the Effective Field Theory of Inflation

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In inflation, comoving curvature conservation forces the other two curvatures to freeze.

desk verdict A genuinely useful unpacking of ζ_c, ζ_u, and ζ_s in single-field inflation; the central hierarchy is sound in the examples, but the general proof carries an explicit initial-condition caveat that needs tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08785 v1 pith:ZD2A4F2M submitted 2019-08-22 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

Macarena Lagos , Meng-Xiang Lin , Wayne Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th
keywords curvatureperturbationssingle-fieldinflationHorndeskitheoryultra-slow-rollbraidingparameterseparateuniversedeltaNformalismprimordialpowerspectrum
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

This paper asks when super-horizon curvature perturbations are genuinely conserved during single-field inflation. It shows that the three standard gauge-invariant curvatures—unitary, comoving, and synchronous—obey a one-way hierarchy: conservation of the comoving curvature forces both unitary and synchronous curvatures to be conserved, but conserving either of the other two does not force the comoving curvature to freeze. In ultra-slow-roll inflation only the synchronous curvature is conserved, which clarifies why the separate-universe picture is only mildly violated even though the comoving curvature grows. In a new braiding-ultra-slow-roll model, unitary and synchronous curvatures freeze to different values while the comoving curvature grows, and the power spectrum observable after inflation is set not by the unitary curvature at horizon exit alone but by how the braiding phase ends. Choosing the 'wrong' curvature therefore changes inflationary predictions for the primordial spectrum.

What carries the argument

The moving parts are the three gauge-invariant curvatures—unitary $\zeta_u$ (spatial curvature on slices where the inflaton is unperturbed), comoving $\zeta_c$ (on slices comoving with the total fluid), and synchronous $\zeta_s$ (seen by free-falling observers initially at rest with the expansion)—together with the two exact Horndeski relations $\zeta_c = \zeta_u - (\Gamma/\varepsilon)\zeta_u'$ and $\zeta_c = \zeta_s + \zeta_s'/\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon$ is the slow-roll parameter and $\Gamma = \alpha_B/(2-\alpha_B)$ encodes the braiding coupling. These identities convert a conservation statement for one variable into a differential relation for another. The conservation hierarchy follows from integrating these relations in the long-wavelength limit, so that frozen $\zeta_c$ leaves no room for $\zeta_u$ or $\zeta_s$ to drift, while frozen $\zeta_u$ or $\zeta_s$ leaves an unfixed integration that allows $\zeta_c$ to grow. The paper also uses the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation and the $\delta N$ formalism to connect these gauge differences to observables.

What would settle it

Numerically solve the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation for a single-field Horndeski model with a transient phase in which $\varepsilon$ decays and $\alpha_B$ is large, and compare the super-horizon evolution of $\zeta_u$, $\zeta_c$, and $\zeta_s$; if $\zeta_c$ is conserved while either $\zeta_u$ or $\zeta_s$ grows with time, the paper's central hierarchy is refuted. For the braiding-ultra-slow-roll prediction, a direct test is measuring the small-scale scalar power spectrum: the claimed suppression, up to about 15 percent with a slope close to $x_t^{3/2}$, should appear for modes crossing the sound horizon near the braiding transition, and a scale-invariant spectrum across that range would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that among the three curvature variables $\zeta_u$, $\zeta_c$, and $\zeta_s$, conservation outside the sound horizon is not a property of the perturbations themselves but of the chosen gauge. Within Horndeski single-field theories, if $\zeta_c$ is constant then $\zeta_s$ and $\zeta_u$ are constant as well, because conservation of $\zeta_c$ integrates to fix the other two; the reverse implication fails, and can fail dramatically. In ultra-slow-roll inflation, $\zeta_u = \zeta_c$ grows as $a^3$ while $\zeta_s$ freezes; in the braiding-ultra-slow-roll model the authors construct, $\zeta_u$ and $\zeta_s$ both freeze but take different values, $\zeta_c$ grows, and the comoving curvature that seeds structure after inflation differs from the unitary curvature at horizon crossing, with a scale-dependent suppression of power near the sound horizon at the braiding transition.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that conservation of $\zeta_c$ propagates to $\zeta_u$ and $\zeta_s$ assumes that all perturbation fields vanish initially, at least in their Hubble-time average, so the integration constants dropped in equations (37) and (42)–(43) are zero; if a model starts with non-vanishing long-wavelength perturbations, boundary terms could break the claimed hierarchy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If $\zeta_c$ is conserved in a single-field Horndeski model, then both $\zeta_u$ and $\zeta_s$ are conserved and approach the same value, making the usual translation from inflationary variables to post-inflation initial conditions safe.
  • In ultra-slow-roll inflation, using $\zeta_c = \zeta_u$ as the super-horizon variable gives a growing curvature, and the separate-universe picture fails in the continuity equation even though $\zeta_s$ is conserved.
  • Despite that mild separate-universe violation, the $\delta N$ formalism still gives the correct $\zeta_u$ power spectrum in ultra-slow-roll, but it breaks down for the uniform-density curvature $\zeta_\rho$.
  • In braiding-ultra-slow-roll inflation, modes that leave the sound horizon less than about one e-fold before braiding vanishes receive a suppression in the final power spectrum, up to about 15 percent for the parameters shown.
  • When braiding vanishes before the end of inflation, $\zeta_u(t_{\rm end}) = \zeta_c(t_{\rm end})$, so the post-inflation comoving curvature is still determined by unitary curvature, but only after evolving it through the braiding transition rather than freezing it at horizon exit.
  • Conservation of $\zeta_c$ is the most restrictive condition: it implies conservation of both $\zeta_u$ and $\zeta_s$, whereas the reverse does not hold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that in any non-slow-roll phase with a time-dependent sound speed, the common practice of equating the horizon-exit value of $\zeta_u$ with the post-inflation observable should be re-checked mode by mode, since exit and freeze-in can occur at different epochs.
  • The scale-dependent suppression of the braiding-ultra-slow-roll power spectrum is a testable signature: a feature in the small-scale scalar spectrum, with slope close to $x_t^{3/2}$ for the example parameters, could be searched for in primordial black hole abundance or spectral distortion constraints.
  • The one-way hierarchy suggests a practical diagnostic for model builders: if the comoving curvature is frozen, gauge subtleties in translating variables are harmless, whereas if it is not frozen, each observable must be computed in the gauge in which it is defined.
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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies three gauge-invariant curvature perturbations in single-field inflation—unitary ζ_u, comoving ζ_c, and synchronous ζ_s—within Horndeski theory and the effective field theory of inflation. It argues that conservation of ζ_c outside the sound horizon implies conservation of ζ_s and ζ_u, whereas the converse holds only under additional conditions. Two models are analyzed: ultra-slow-roll (USR), where ζ_c = ζ_u grows while ζ_s is conserved, and a new braiding-ultra-slow-roll (BUSR) model, where ζ_u and ζ_s are conserved but different while ζ_c grows. The paper then examines consequences for the separate-universe approximation, the δN formalism, and the observable curvature power spectrum, finding in a numerical BUSR example that modes leaving the horizon near a braiding transition acquire a suppressed final amplitude rather than simply inheriting ζ_u at horizon crossing.

Significance. If the core implication is established, the paper provides a useful clarification: the common practice of treating conservation of ζ_c as equivalent to conservation of other curvature variables is too permissive in non-slow-roll or braided single-field models. The USR and BUSR examples are instructive, and the numerical demonstration that the observable power spectrum after inflation can differ from ζ_u at horizon crossing is a nontrivial, falsifiable consequence. The paper also makes a crisp conceptual point that separate universe is tied to synchronous slicing and can fail through the continuity equation even when ζ_s is conserved. The presentation is mostly clear, and the analytic derivations are transparent; the numerical integrations are specified with a full parameter set, making the main quantitative result reproducible in principle. The main weakness is that the general conservation hierarchy in Section III rests on an unproven initial-condition assumption for the homogeneous solutions of the first-order relations.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section III.A and III.B, Eqs. (37)-(38) and (42)-(43)] The derivation that a conserved ζ_c forces conservation of ζ_u and ζ_s solves first-order differential relations by integrating ζ'_c and drops the homogeneous solutions. The paper's statement in Sections III.A and III.B that all perturbations vanish initially, at least in their Hubble time average, is an assumption rather than a derived property of Bunch-Davies or any other standard initial state, and it is not checked against the full Mukhanov-Sasaki equation (45), which is the equation that would decide whether these modes are physical. For a conserved ζ_c, Eq. (32) has the homogeneous solution ζ_s ∝ exp(-∫ ε d ln a), while Eq. (31) admits homogeneous modes ∝ exp(∫ ε/Γ d ln a), which can grow and are not O(x^2). Unless these modes are killed by the physical initial conditions, ζ'_s and ζ'_u will contain O(ε) contributions rather than the claimed O(x^2) corrections. The USR example itself illustrates the role of history/boundary terms: Eq. (54) retains the full solution (52) to obtain the non-zero conserved ζ_s in Eq. (55), whereas simply dropping the homogeneous terms in Eq. (43) with ζ_c = ζ_u ∝ a^3 would give a different result. Thus the central claim that conservation of ζ_c generically implies conservation of ζ_s and ζ_u is established only under a non-trivial, unproven initial-condition assumption.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (37)] The symbol u is used for the exponential weighting in Eq. (37) and also for the Mukhanov variable in Eq. (45); this notational clash should be fixed, for example by renaming the exponential factor.
  2. [Section III.B, first sentence] The opening sentence says the section studies the relationship between comoving and unitary curvatures, but the section actually treats comoving and synchronous curvatures; the text should be corrected.
  3. [Section I and Section V.B] There is a duplicated 'the the' near the introduction of the unitary curvature, and 'cosomological' should be 'cosmological' in Section V.B; a careful proofreading pass would remove these errors.
  4. [Fig. 1] The figure's arrow labels are under-explained; the sentence in the text that labels indicate quantities which should be ≲ O(1) would be clearer if each arrow were explicitly defined in the caption.
  5. [Section V.A] The claim that the δN formalism yields the correct ζ_u in USR is asserted rather than demonstrated; a short explicit computation using Eqs. (67) and (73) would make the claim reproducible and easier to check.
  6. [Section V.B] The numerical example is described for a single parameter set, and the text notes that the x_t^{3/2} scaling is model-dependent; stating the initial field value φ_I and the e-fold interval between the attractor and the transition would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conservation relations are derived from the perturbed Einstein equations and gauge definitions, while the USR/BUSR examples solve the independent Mukhanov-Sasaki equation; self-citations are context-only.

full rationale

The paper's central conservation hierarchy in Sec. III is self-contained. Equations (31) and (32) follow from the gauge-invariant definitions (14)-(15), the effective-fluid Einstein equations (6)-(8), and the Horndeski braiding relation (29). Integrating these first-order relations gives eqs. (38) and (43), and the claimed implications for ζu and ζs are consequences of those integrated relations, not restatements of the desired conclusion. The USR and BUSR examples independently solve the Mukhanov-Sasaki equation (45) and then transform to the other curvature variables, so the conservation or growth of each curvature is derived rather than assumed. The main caveat is explicitly disclosed by the authors in Sec. III.A: eqs. (37)-(38) and (42)-(43) are 'valid up to some integration constant that has been ignored, as it depends on the initial velocity, and we have assumed that all perturbations vanish initially, at least in their Hubble time average.' This is a boundary-condition limitation on the generality of the statement that conservation of ζc forces conservation of ζu and ζs, but it is not circularity, because the initial-condition assumption is external to the target claim and is not derived from that claim. The self-citations ([4], [12], [20], [29]) are used for separate-universe framing, generic-solution context, and the USR ending bispectrum, but the conservation proof and model calculations do not rest on them; the key relations are rederived in the paper. The CMB-normalized value of Hi in the BUSR example is illustrative parameter fixing rather than a prediction extracted from the model. The score of 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations; no circular step was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard gauge and cosmological perturbation theory, the Horndeski action, Bunch-Davies initial conditions, dropped integration constants, and stability and end-of-inflation choices. The numerical example adds several hand-chosen parameters.

free parameters (7)
  • H_i = 2.1e-4
    BUSR Hubble scale; chosen to normalize the unitary power spectrum to the CMB amplitude P≈10^-9 in the numerical example.
  • alpha_hat_B = 1
    Braiding parameter on the attractor; fixed to 1 in the numerical study and must lie in (0,2) for stability.
  • phi0 = 4.7e4
    Field value where the tanh braiding transition occurs.
  • d0 = 3.3e3
    Width of the braiding transition in field space.
  • phi1 = 5.7e4
    Field value where the potential transition occurs.
  • d1 = 3.8e3
    Width of the potential transition in field space.
  • initial field value phi_I = not specified
    Chosen so the system starts on the phi_dot=1 attractor; the exact value is not stated.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Horndeski action is the most general single-field scalar-tensor theory with second-order field equations
    Invoked in Section III before eq. (31) to restrict the ζ_c-ζ_u relation.
  • domain assumption Bunch-Davies vacuum is the initial state for the Mukhanov-Sasaki variable u
    Used in eq. (52) and below to solve the mode equation.
  • domain assumption All perturbations vanish initially, at least in their Hubble-time average, so integration constants in eqs. (37), (42)-(43) are dropped
    Load-bearing for the general conservation hierarchy; stated explicitly by the authors.
  • domain assumption Ghost and gradient stability require Q_s > 0 and c_s^2 > 0, i.e. 0 < alpha_hat_B < 2
    Imposed after eq. (61) to restrict the BUSR parameter space.
  • domain assumption Braiding must vanish before reheating to avoid spoiling it
    Motivates the transition in Section V B, citing refs. [14,15].
  • domain assumption The separate-universe validity conditions in eqs. (23)-(25) adequately capture whether the local continuity equation is FRW-like
    Defines the paper's criterion for separate universe; based on prior work [4,12].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curvature Perturbations in the Effective Field Theory of Inflation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZD2A4F2M

@misc{pith2026190808785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curvature Perturbations in the Effective Field Theory of Inflation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZD2A4F2M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08785}
}
abstract

We discuss the difference between various gauge-invariant quantities typically used in single-field inflation, namely synchronous $\zeta_s$, comoving $\zeta_c$, and unitary $\zeta_u$ curvatures. We show that conservation of $\zeta_c$ outside the horizon is quite restrictive on models as it leads to conservation of $\zeta_s$ and $\zeta_u$, whereas the reverse does not hold. We illustrate the consequence of these differences with two inflationary models: ultra-slow-roll (USR) and braiding-ultra-slow-roll (BUSR). In USR, we show that out of the three curvatures, only $\zeta_s$ is conserved outside the horizon, and we connect this result to the concepts of separate universe and the usage of the $\delta N$ formalism. We find that even though $\zeta_s$ is conserved, there is still a mild violation of the separate universe approximation in the continuity equation. Nevertheless, the $\delta N$ formalism can still be applied to calculate the primordial power spectrum of some gauge-invariant quantities such as $\zeta_u$, although it breaks down for others such as the uniform-density curvature. In BUSR, we show that both $\zeta_u$ and $\zeta_s$ are conserved outside the horizon, but take different values. Additionally, since $\zeta_u\not=\zeta_c$ we find that the prediction for observable curvature fluctuations after inflation does not reflect $\zeta_c$ at horizon crossing during inflation and moreover involves not just $\zeta_u$ at that epoch but also the manner in which the braiding phase ends.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08785 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Summary of Section III on conservation relationships be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The phase space evolution of the BUSR model through the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dimensionless power spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Akrami et al

    Y . Akrami et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Cheung, P

    C. Cheung, P. Creminelli, A. L. Fitzpatrick, J. Kaplan, and L. Senatore, JHEP 03, 014 (2008), arXiv:0709.0293 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [4]

    Hu, C.-T

    W. Hu, C.-T. Chiang, Y . Li, and M. LoVerde, Phys. Rev. D94, 023002 (2016), arXiv:1605.01412 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Sasaki and E

    M. Sasaki and E. D. Stewart, Prog. Theor. Phys. 95, 71 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9507001 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [6]

    There are also two repellers ˙¯ϕ≈ 0.677,−0.898

    Note that the number and values of real solutions depend on the choice of ˆαB. There are also two repellers ˙¯ϕ≈ 0.677,−0.898. For this parameter choice, the three attractors are shown in Fig. 2, where we see that solutions with ˙¯ϕ = 1 evolve towards the right with increasing field values, whereas solutions with ˙¯ϕ = − √ 6 evolve towards the left with de...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Wands, K

    D. Wands, K. A. Malik, D. H. Lyth, and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D62, 043527 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003278 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    N. S. Sugiyama, E. Komatsu, and T. Futamase, Phys. Rev.D87, 023530 (2013), arXiv:1208.1073 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Domenech, J.-O

    G. Domenech, J.-O. Gong, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B769, 413 (2017), arXiv:1606.03343 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A. A. Abolhasani and M. Sasaki, JCAP 1808, 025 (2018), arXiv:1805.11298 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. A. Abolhasani, H. Firouzjahi, A. Naruko, and M. Sasaki, Delta N F ormalism in Cosmological Per- turbation Theory (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2019) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/10953

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D72, 023515 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0503017 [gr-qc]

    2005

  5. [13]

    Hu and A

    W. Hu and A. Joyce, Phys. Rev. D95, 043529 (2017), arXiv:1612.02454 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D. H. Lyth, K. A. Malik, and M. Sasaki, JCAP 0505, 004 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411220 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ohashi and S

    J. Ohashi and S. Tsujikawa, JCAP 1210, 035 (2012), arXiv:1207.4879 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lopez, J

    M. Lopez, J. Maggiolo, N. Videla, P. Gonzalez, and G. Pan- otopoulos, (2019), arXiv:1908.03155 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    J. M. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D22, 1882 (1980)

    1980

  10. [18]

    G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  11. [19]

    Deffayet, X

    C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D84, 064039 (2011), arXiv:1103.3260 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bellini and I

    E. Bellini and I. Sawicki, JCAP 1407, 050 (2014), arXiv:1404.3713 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Motohashi and W

    H. Motohashi and W. Hu, Phys. Rev. D96, 023502 (2017), arXiv:1704.01128 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

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

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Martin, H

    J. Martin, H. Motohashi, and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D87, 023514 (2013), arXiv:1211.0083 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Huang and Y

    Q.-G. Huang and Y . Wang, JCAP 1306, 035 (2013), arXiv:1303.4526 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mooij and G

    S. Mooij and G. A. Palma, JCAP 1511, 025 (2015), arXiv:1502.03458 [astro-ph.CO]. 15

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. E. Romano, S. Mooij, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B761, 119 (2016), arXiv:1606.04906 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bravo, S

    R. Bravo, S. Mooij, G. A. Palma, and B. Pradenas, JCAP 1805, 024 (2018), arXiv:1711.02680 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Germani and T

    C. Germani and T. Prokopec, Phys. Dark Univ. 18, 6 (2017), arXiv:1706.04226 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Y .-F. Cai, X. Chen, M. H. Namjoo, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang, and Z. Wang, JCAP 1805, 012 (2018), arXiv:1712.09998 [astro- ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Passaglia, W

    S. Passaglia, W. Hu, and H. Motohashi, Phys. Rev. D99, 043536 (2019), arXiv:1812.08243 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Kennedy, L

    J. Kennedy, L. Lombriser, and A. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D96, 084051 (2017), arXiv:1705.09290 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kennedy, L

    J. Kennedy, L. Lombriser, and A. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D98, 044051 (2018), arXiv:1804.04582 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    H.-C. Lee, M. Sasaki, E. D. Stewart, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, JCAP0510, 004 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0506262 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Matsuda, Phys

    T. Matsuda, Phys. Lett. B682, 163 (2009), arXiv:0906.2525 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Watanabe, Phys

    Y . Watanabe, Phys. Rev. D85, 103505 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    A. A. Abolhasani, R. Emami, J. T. Firouzjaee, and H. Firouz- jahi, JCAP 1308, 016 (2013), arXiv:1302.6986 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Talebian-Ashkezari, N

    A. Talebian-Ashkezari, N. Ahmadi, and A. A. Abolhasani, JCAP 1803, 001 (2018), arXiv:1609.05893 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A. E. Romano, S. Mooij, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Lett. B755, 464 (2016), arXiv:1512.05757 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    2003

  32. [40]

    Creminelli and M

    P. Creminelli and M. Zaldarriaga, JCAP 0410, 006 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0407059 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.