Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

One-loop scalar-sourced corrections can amplify the primordial tensor power spectrum by up to twelve orders of magnitude in an oscillatory spectator-field model, forcing the tree-level tensor-to-scalar ratio to 1e-6 or below.

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

2026-08-03 10:47 UTC pith:BMB5YB4F

load-bearing objection First explicit one-loop tensor spectrum for non-minimal spectator PBH models, but the Model O bound rests on a loop correction 10^12 times tree with no two-loop control. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.08675 v2 pith:BMB5YB4F submitted 2026-01-13 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th

One-Loop Tensor Power Spectrum from a Non-Canonical Spectator Field during Inflation

Zhe Li , Chen Yuan , Qing-Guo Huang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-th
keywords one-loop tensor power spectrumspectator fieldnon-minimal couplingprimordial black holesprimordial gravitational wavestensor-to-scalar ratioin-in formalisminflation
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.

This paper asks whether loop corrections from a non-minimally coupled spectator scalar could change the primordial gravitational-wave (tensor) spectrum in inflation models built to make primordial black holes. Using the in-in formalism, it computes the full one-loop tensor power spectrum for two coupling profiles: a localized Gaussian dip and a rapidly oscillating coupling. The central result is that the corrections are modest (order one) for the Gaussian-dip model but overwhelm the tree-level spectrum by roughly twelve orders of magnitude for the oscillatory model. That matters because it converts a would-be primordial B-mode constraint into a tight bound on the tree-level tensor-to-scalar ratio, r0 < 1e-6 in the oscillatory case, and it shifts predictions for the gravitational-wave background that future space-based detectors might see.

Core claim

The paper's claim is that the tensor power spectrum takes the form Ph(q) = Ph0(q) + Ph1(q) + Ph2(q), with Ph1 arising from the quartic 'seagull' diagram and Ph2 from the double-cubic 'bubble' diagram, and that this gives the complete one-loop contribution sourced by the spectator scalar fluctuations. Evaluating these integrals numerically with renormalized mode functions, the paper finds that the bubble diagram dominates, producing a scale-invariant infrared plateau followed by a resonant peak. For the oscillatory coupling Model O the one-loop piece exceeds the tree-level piece by about 10^12, while for the Gaussian-dip Model G the loop-to-tree ratio stays at order one. On that basis the pap

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-minimal coupling function f(phi) in the spectator kinetic term, which enters the interaction Hamiltonian as a time-dependent prefactor and excites the scalar mode functions. With f removed by defining the canonical variable sigma = delta-chi/(a f), the seagull and bubble one-loop integrals reduce to momentum-weighted time integrals over |sigma|^2 and |sigma|^4 respectively; the bubble term carries a steeper p^6 |sigma|^4 weighting and hence dominates. Renormalized mode functions are obtained by aligning the numerical solution to the vacuum mode function at a UV cutoff and subtracting that vacuum piece, so the loop integrals retain only the physical enhancem

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the one-loop truncated series Ph = Ph0 + Ph1 + Ph2 is a trustworthy approximation to the full tensor spectrum; for Model O, where the one-loop term exceeds tree level by about 10^12, the paper gives no estimate that two-loop or higher-order terms are subdominant.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop (double-bubble and two-seagull) contribution to the tensor power spectrum for Model O using the same UV-subtraction renormalization scheme. If the two-loop term is of order or larger than the one-loop bubble term (~10^12 Ph0), then the one-loop series is not predictive and the derived bound r0 < 1e-6 does not follow.

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

If this is right

  • For Model G, the one-loop corrections are at most comparable to tree level; with reff constrained by CMB observations, the tree-level tensor-to-scalar ratio must satisfy r0 < 6.2e-3.
  • For Model O, the one-loop bubble dominates and amplifies the effective tensor-to-scalar ratio by orders of magnitude, forcing r0 < 1e-6 to stay within observational bounds.
  • The loop-enhanced primordial gravitational-wave background from PBH dark matter at 10^-12 solar masses remains several orders of magnitude below the sensitivities of planned space-based interferometers, so this scenario is consistent with a null detection.
  • The bubble diagram dominates over the seagull in both models, giving a concrete hierarchy: loop corrections are controlled by the p^6 |sigma|^4 weighting rather than the milder p^4 |sigma|^2 term.
  • The one-loop tensor spectrum develops a scale-invariant infrared plateau, which means the correction affects the tensor-to-scalar ratio on CMB scales and not only on the small scales where the spectator feature operates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The ~10^12 enhancement in Model O suggests the one-loop expansion may be breaking down; a two-loop or resummed computation could either rescue the bound or show that perturbation theory fails, which would invalidate the r0 < 1e-6 limit.
  • Inference: The same loop mechanism should generate correlators beyond the power spectrum, such as a scalar-sourced tensor bispectrum; measuring non-Gaussian gravitational-wave statistics could test the spectator mechanism independently.
  • Inference: The rapid-oscillation constraint implies PBH-producing spectator models are not all equivalent: only features with sufficiently fast oscillation are strongly constrained, while smooth, broad features remain viable PBH dark-matter generators.
  • Inference: If space-based gravitational-wave detector sensitivity improves by several orders of magnitude, the predicted one-loop background could be distinguished from scalar-induced gravitational waves by its spectral shape, offering a direct observational discriminant.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the one-loop corrections to the primordial tensor power spectrum in an inflationary model with a non-minimally coupled spectator field, using the in-in formalism. The authors derive semi-analytic expressions for the seagull (quartic) and bubble (double cubic) contributions (Eqs. (22)-(23)), and evaluate them numerically for two coupling profiles: a localized Gaussian dip (Model G) and an oscillatory feature (Model O). They define an effective tensor-to-scalar ratio r_eff (Eq. (32)) and quote upper bounds on the tree-level tensor-to-scalar ratio: r0 < 6.2e-3 for Model G and r0 < 1e-6 for Model O (Eqs. (34)-(35)). They also compute the present-day GW energy density and conclude that the loop-enhanced primordial GW background remains below the sensitivity of Taiji/TianQin/LISA.

Significance. If correct, this would be the first one-loop tensor power spectrum calculation in a concrete non-minimal spectator PBH scenario, extending the excited-scalar analysis of Ref. [31] to a model-realized coupling. The semi-analytic formulas and the explicit evaluation of two distinct coupling profiles are useful for future PBH/GW studies. The paper's strengths are the first-principles in-in calculation with numerical mode functions and the clear separation of seagull and bubble diagrams. However, the key quantitative conclusions depend on the one-loop truncation and on an extrapolation of the numerical spectra to the pivot scale; these points are not established in the current version.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (32)-(35), Fig. 3(b)] For Model O, Fig. 3(b) shows the one-loop contribution exceeding the tree-level spectrum by ~10^12 at the fiducial r0=0.01. Since both P_h1 and P_h2 scale as H^2/M_pl^2 (Eq. (19)), this implies the expansion parameter is ~10^12 (r0/0.01), so the one-loop truncated series is not perturbative. The bound r0<1e-6 is obtained by imposing r_eff<=0.01 with this uncontrolled one-loop term; without a two-loop estimate, a resummation, or some other control of higher-order terms, Eq. (35) and the associated GW predictions (Fig. 5) are unsupported. The paper itself acknowledges the 'strong enhancement' but does not address the validity of the perturbative expansion.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (31)] The renormalized mode function sigma_R is defined by BD subtraction with an alignment factor alpha, but the scheme independence of the physical residual is not demonstrated. The factor alpha depends on the matching momentum Lambda and on the phase convention of sigma_BD; different choices can shift sigma_R by finite pieces. Since the loop amplitudes depend linearly and quadratically on sigma_R, this finite shift can change the numerical results and the derived bounds. The authors should test the scheme dependence (e.g., varying Lambda, or comparing with a WKB/adiabatic subtraction) and provide an explicit argument or numerical evidence that the physical one-loop spectrum is scheme independent.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3 and Eqs. (25)-(26), (33)] The pivot scale q_p=0.05h/Mpc corresponds to qtilde = q_p/p_* ~ 5e-14 (Model G) and ~3e-12 (Model O), far below the smallest qtilde shown in Fig. 3 (1e-3). The constraints (34)-(35), evaluated at q_p, therefore rely on the analytic IR formulas (25)-(26) which are asserted without derivation, and on an assumed qtilde-independent plateau that is numerically checked only down to qtilde~1e-3. A direct numerical evaluation at the pivot, or a rigorous derivation of the IR plateau, is needed. If the spectrum continues to grow or develops scale dependence at smaller qtilde, the bounds would change.
  4. [Sec. IV, x0=-1 and numerical setup] The statement that contributions from x<x0 are negligible because f=1 and the integrand is highly oscillatory is an assertion; no convergence test with respect to x0 is shown. Likewise, the paper provides no details on the time and momentum grid resolution, the momentum cutoff, or error estimates for the multi-dimensional integrals in Eqs. (22)-(23). Given the sharp features (Delta=0.1, Lambda=0.01, xi=0.001) and the huge dynamic range of the loop-to-tree ratio, numerical convergence checks are essential to support the quantitative claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title/Abstract] The arXiv title uses 'non-canonical' while the manuscript title and abstract use 'non-minimally coupled'; please standardize the terminology.
  2. [Eqs. (20) and (22)] The momentum integral in these equations is typeset ambiguously ('p4 3dp3' and '~p4 3d~p3'); please clarify the intended measure (likely 'd^3 p' or a radial factor).
  3. [Eq. (33) and Fig. 3] The sign of P_h1 is not discussed; Fig. 3 shows |P_h1|. If P_h1 is negative, r_eff could be smaller than r0, which would affect the direction of the constraints. Please specify the sign and justify whether the absolute value is the relevant quantity for the bounds.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 5] The caption does not specify the r_eff or r0 values used for the plotted curves. The text says 'we take reff=0.01' but for Model O this corresponds to a very different r0 than for Model G; please state the normalization explicitly.
  5. [Sec. IV, p. 6] Typo: 'has already setted' should be 'has already settled'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the one-loop tensor spectrum is obtained from the in-in formalism and numerical mode functions; self-citations supply model inputs, not the tensor result.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The one-loop tensor power spectrum Ph = Ph0 + Ph1 + Ph2 follows from the in-in expansion (Eq. 15) of the interaction Hamiltonians (Eqs. 9-10), with the seagull and bubble contributions given in Eqs. (22)-(23). The loop integrals are evaluated using numerical spectator mode functions and an explicit BD-subtraction renormalization scheme (Eq. 31). The factor H^2/M_pl^2 is rewritten in terms of r0 in Eq. (19), but this is an algebraic identity, not a fit to the tensor spectrum. The effective tensor-to-scalar ratio r_eff is then defined as a ratio (Eq. 32), not fitted from the quantity it claims to predict. The bounds in Eqs. (34)-(35) are obtained by imposing the external CMB constraint r_eff <= 0.01 and solving; whether that inversion is physically justified when the one-loop term exceeds the tree-level term (as in Model O, Fig. 3b) is a perturbativity/convergence concern, not circularity. The author-overlapping citations (Refs. [26,27,30]) provide the coupling ansatze, the PBH-dark-matter parameter calibration, and the scalar mode functions; these are inputs from prior work rather than conclusions of this paper, and the tensor one-loop calculation is not reduced to them. A lack of a two-loop estimate or resummation weakens the quoted r0 limits and GW predictions, but does not make the derivation definitionally circular. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited from the text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard in-in formalism, numerical mode functions, a custom BD-subtraction renormalization, and coupling parameters imported from the authors' earlier paper [27]. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The free parameters are the amplitudes and shape parameters of f(phi) plus the characteristic scale p_*, all fixed by requiring PBHs to constitute all dark matter.

free parameters (4)
  • AG (Model G coupling amplitude) = not quoted in the paper; chosen so PBHs are all of dark matter
    Amplitude of the Gaussian dip in fG(x), Eq. (27); adopted from [27]. It sets the scalar mode enhancement and therefore the size of the loop corrections.
  • AO (Model O coupling amplitude) = not quoted in the paper; chosen so PBHs are all of dark matter
    Amplitude of the oscillatory coupling in fO(x), Eq. (28); adopted from [27] and controls the large loop enhancement.
  • p_* (characteristic scale) = 7e11 Mpc^-1 (Model G), 9e9 Mpc^-1 (Model O)
    p_* = a(tau_*)H is the mode that exits at the feature; chosen so PBH masses peak at 10^-12 Msun. It sets all dimensionless loop integrals.
  • Delta, Lambda, xi (feature shape parameters) = 0.1, 0.01, 0.001
    Width, smoothing, and oscillation period of the coupling profiles in Eqs. (27)-(28); taken from [27].
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The in-in (Schwinger-Keldysh) formalism with Bunch-Davies vacuum gives the correct one-loop expectation values.
    Used throughout Sec. III; this is the standard tool for inflationary correlation functions but is an assumption about the initial state and the validity of the perturbative expansion.
  • domain assumption The spectator and tensor perturbations are in the Bunch-Davies vacuum deep inside the horizon, so the free mode functions (13)-(14) apply at tau0 -> -infinity.
    Invoked when setting initial conditions for the numerical scalar mode functions in Sec. II and III.
  • ad hoc to paper Contributions from times earlier than x0=-1 are negligible because f=1 there and the integrand is highly oscillatory and cancels.
    Stated in Sec. IV without a quantitative bound; if this truncation is inaccurate, the loop integrals and resulting plateaus change.
  • ad hoc to paper The BD-subtraction with UV alignment defined in Eq. (31), sigma_R = lim_{Lambda->infinity}(sigma_p - alpha sigma_BD_p), removes only the UV-divergent BD contribution and leaves a scheme-independent physical residual.
    This is the paper's renormalization choice; no check of scheme independence is given, so the residual spectrum could depend on the subtraction prescription.
  • ad hoc to paper The one-loop truncated result is sufficient to define r_eff and derive bounds even when P_loop/P_tree >> 1.
    Used when converting the Model O one-loop enhancement into r0 < 1e-6 in Eq. (35); no higher-loop estimate is provided, so the validity of this truncation is a load-bearing assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11419 in / 17016 out tokens · 163265 ms · 2026-08-03T10:47:24.189194+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compute the full one-loop corrections to the primordial tensor power spectrum in an inflationary scenario with a {non-canonical spectator field}, using the in-in formalism. We derive semi-analytic results for the scalar-sourced one-loop tensor spectrum and the effective tensor-to-scalar ratio, $r_{\mathrm{eff}}$. We consider two representative coupling functions: a localized Gaussian dip (Model G), which leads to moderate loop corrections, and a rapidly oscillatory coupling (Model O), which can yield much larger loop contributions. For Model G, we find a $\mathcal{O}(1)$ correction to $r_{\mathrm{eff}}$ while Model O can significantly enhance $r_{\mathrm{eff}}$ by several orders of magnitude (relative to the tree-level value). We further calculate the energy density of primordial gravitational waves. Assuming that primordial black holes with mass $10^{-12}M_{\odot}$ generated in this scenario, constitute all of the dark matter, we find that the results are several orders of magnitude lower than the sensitivities of Taiji/TianQin/LISA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.08675 by Chen Yuan, Qing-Guo Huang, Zhe Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. One-loop Feynman diagrams correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The non-minimal coupling functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The one-loop corrections to the tensor power spectrum for (a) Model G and (b) Model O. The vertical axis displays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The effective tensor-to-scalar ratio for Model G and Model O as a function of the tree-level value. The gray shaded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The present-day spectral energy density of primordial GWs as a function of frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.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

39 extracted references · 32 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    GW150914: The Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of First Discoveries,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW150914: The Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Era of First Discoveries,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 131103 (2016), arXiv:1602.03838 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “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. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), “GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmological Model,

    Ya. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, “The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmological Model,” Sov. Astron.10, 602 (1967)

    1967

  9. [9]

    Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,

    Stephen Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152, 75 (1971)

    1971

  10. [10]

    Black holes in the early Universe,

    Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399–415 (1974)

    1974

  11. [11]

    Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,

    Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial black holes—perspectives in gravitational wave astronomy,” Class. Quant. Grav.35, 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,

    Anne M. Green and Bradley J. Kavanagh, “Primordial Black Holes as a dark matter candidate,” J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Enhancement of superhorizon scale inflationary curvature perturbations,

    Samuel M Leach, Misao Sasaki, David Wands, and Andrew R Liddle, “Enhancement of superhorizon scale inflationary curvature perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D64, 023512 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101406

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  14. [14]

    Improved estimates of cosmological perturbations,

    N. C. Tsamis and Richard P. Woodard, “Improved estimates of cosmological perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D69, 084005 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    Horizon crossing and inflation with large eta,

    William H. Kinney, “Horizon crossing and inflation with large eta,” Phys. Rev. D72, 023515 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0503017

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  16. [16]

    Ultra slow-roll inflation demystified,

    Konstantinos Dimopoulos, “Ultra slow-roll inflation demystified,” Phys. Lett. B775, 262–265 (2017), arXiv:1707.05644 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Constraining Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation,

    Jason Kristiano and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “Constraining Primordial Black Hole Formation from Single-Field Inflation,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221003 (2024), arXiv:2211.03395 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    One-loop corrections in power spectrum in single field inflation,

    Hassan Firouzjahi, “One-loop corrections in power spectrum in single field inflation,” JCAP10, 006 (2023), arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Revisiting loop corrections in single field ultraslow-roll inflation,

    Hassan Firouzjahi, “Revisiting loop corrections in single field ultraslow-roll inflation,” Phys. Rev. D109, 043514 (2024), arXiv:2311.04080 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Loop corrections in the bispectrum in ultraslow-roll inflation with PBHs formation,

    Hassan Firouzjahi, “Loop corrections in the bispectrum in ultraslow-roll inflation with PBHs formation,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 043519 (2024), arXiv:2403.03841 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    One-loop power spectrum in ultra slow-roll inflation and implications for primordial black hole dark matter,

    Guillermo Ballesteros and Jes´ us Gamb ´ ın Egea, “One-loop power spectrum in ultra slow-roll inflation and implications for primordial black hole dark matter,” JCAP07, 052 (2024), arXiv:2404.07196 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Primordial black holes and stochastic gravitational wave background from inflation with a noncanonical spectator field,

    Rong-Gen Cai, Chao Chen, and Chengjie Fu, “Primordial black holes and stochastic gravitational wave background from inflation with a noncanonical spectator field,” Phys. Rev. D104, 083537 (2021), arXiv:2108.03422 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Curvature and isocurvature perturbations in two-field inflation,

    Z. Lalak, D. Langlois, S. Pokorski, and K. Turzynski, “Curvature and isocurvature perturbations in two-field inflation,” JCAP07, 014 (2007), arXiv:0704.0212 [hep-th]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Power Spectra beyond the Slow Roll Approximation in Theories with Non-Canonical Kinetic Terms,

    Carsten van de Bruck and Mathew Robinson, “Power Spectra beyond the Slow Roll Approximation in Theories with Non-Canonical Kinetic Terms,” JCAP08, 024 (2014), arXiv:1404.7806 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  25. [25]

    Generating primordial features at large scales in two field models of inflation,

    Matteo Braglia, Dhiraj Kumar Hazra, L. Sriramkumar, and Fabio Finelli, “Generating primordial features at large scales in two field models of inflation,” JCAP08, 025 (2020), arXiv:2004.00672 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Primordial black hole formation in nonminimal curvaton scenarios,

    Shi Pi and Misao Sasaki, “Primordial black hole formation in nonminimal curvaton scenarios,” Phys. Rev. D108, L101301 (2023), arXiv:2112.12680 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Primordial black holes generated by the non-minimal spectator field,

    De-Shuang Meng, Chen Yuan, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Primordial black holes generated by the non-minimal spectator field,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, 280411 (2023), arXiv:2212.03577 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Growth of curvature perturbations for PBH formation & detectable GWs in non-minimal curvaton scenario revisited,

    Chao Chen, Anish Ghoshal, Zygmunt Lalak, Yudong Luo, and Abhishek Naskar, “Growth of curvature perturbations for PBH formation & detectable GWs in non-minimal curvaton scenario revisited,” JCAP08, 041 (2023), arXiv:2305.12325 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Gravitational wave cosmology,

    Ligong Bianet al., “Gravitational wave cosmology,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 210401 (2026), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    One-loop correction to the enhanced curvature perturbation with local-type non-Gaussianity for the formation of primordial black holes,

    De-Shuang Meng, Chen Yuan, and Qing-guo Huang, “One-loop correction to the enhanced curvature perturbation with local-type non-Gaussianity for the formation of primordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D106, 063508 (2022), arXiv:2207.07668 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    One-loop tensor power spectrum from an excited scalar field during inflation,

    Atsuhisa Ota, Misao Sasaki, and Yi Wang, “One-loop tensor power spectrum from an excited scalar field during inflation,” Phys. Rev. D108, 043542 (2023), arXiv:2211.12766 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Scale-invariant enhancement of gravitational waves during inflation,

    Atsuhisa Ota, Misao Sasaki, and Yi Wang, “Scale-invariant enhancement of gravitational waves during inflation,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A38, 2350063 (2023), arXiv:2209.02272 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,

    Juan Martin Maldacena, “Non-Gaussian features of primordial fluctuations in single field inflationary models,” JHEP05, 013 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0210603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  34. [34]

    Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,

    Steven Weinberg, “Quantum contributions to cosmological correlations,” Phys. Rev. D72, 043514 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0506236

    arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(BICEP, Keck), “Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Improved Calculation of the Primordial Gravitational Wave Spectrum in the Standard Model,

    Yuki Watanabe and Eiichiro Komatsu, “Improved Calculation of the Primordial Gravitational Wave Spectrum in the Standard Model,” Phys. Rev. D73, 123515 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604176

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,

    Jun Luoet al.(TianQin), “TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity,

    Wen-Rui Hu and Yue-Liang Wu, “The Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity,” Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685–686 (2017)

    2017

  39. [39]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,

    Pau Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017