Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

This paper claims that the finite dip in the curvature power spectrum of slow-roll–ultra-slow-roll–slow-roll inflation is produced, within linear perturbation theory, by the cancellation of two growing modes, and derives simple asymptotic f

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

2026-08-02 23:35 UTC pith:VLUU3ETN

load-bearing objection Useful asymptotic formulas, but the abstract's dip mechanism is contradicted by the paper's own equations. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.13074 v2 pith:VLUU3ETN submitted 2026-02-13 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Evolution of Linear Perturbations under Time-Dependent Hubble Friction I: SR-USR-SR Inflation

Wen Li , Chao Chen This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO
keywords ultra-slow-roll inflationcurvature power spectrumdip structurejunction methodHankel functionslinear perturbationsprimordial black holesasymptotic expansion
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.

Ultra-slow-roll inflation sandwiched between two slow-roll phases leaves a characteristic dip in the curvature power spectrum, and this paper argues that the dip is a purely linear effect: two growing modes inside the ultra-slow-roll phase cancel against each other, rather than a constant mode cancelling against a growing one. Using the junction method and asymptotic expansions of Hankel functions, the paper derives simple closed-form approximations for the time evolution of the power spectrum in all three wavenumber regimes, covering the dip, the k^4 growth, the e^{6 N_USR} plateau enhancement, and the oscillatory wiggles. These formulas make the dip a quantitative probe: its depth scales as e^{-3 N_USR} and its position scales with the transition times, so future high-precision CMB measurements could in principle read off the duration of the ultra-slow-roll phase. The paper's numerics validate the asymptotics against the exact Hankel solution of the same idealized instantaneous-transition model.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the finite dip in the curvature power spectrum P_R(k) of SR-USR-SR inflation arises from cancellation between two growing modes within linear perturbation theory. In the superhorizon limit of the USR phase, the spectrum contains a positive growing term proportional to (-τ)^{-6} and a negative growing term proportional to (-τ)^{-3}; their interference first drives the spectrum down to a finite minimum at τ_c = -(2/5)^{1/3} k^{2/3}(-τ_1)^{5/3}, with value P ≈ 2 P_CMB (-k τ_1)^2. After the second transition, this time-domain dip becomes the wavenumber-domain dip of the final spectrum, located at k_dip ≈ (sqrt(5)/2)(-τ_2)^{3/2}/(-τ_1)^{5/2} with depth P_dip ≈ (5

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the Hankel-function solution of the linear mode equation under the quasi-de Sitter approximation, combined with the junction method: the inflation history is treated as instantaneous jumps between phases with different effective index d = (3h-ε)/(2(1-ε)), and the mode function and its conformal-time derivative are matched at each jump. Three ordering rules guide the asymptotics—identify the dominant terms at each transition, identify the dominant terms at later times, and do the first before the second. The crucial subtlety is that a higher-order term in the constant mode at the first transition dominates all growing modes at that moment, and it is exactly this

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the inflation history can be treated as instantaneous jumps between slow-roll and ultra-slow-roll phases, with the mode function and its derivative continuous across each jump; if real transitions are smooth or require different matching conditions, the dip mechanism and all the asymptotic formulas would need revision.

What would settle it

Compute the linear power spectrum for a smooth reconstructed SR-USR-SR potential with finite transition widths and check whether the dip depth follows (5/2) P_CMB e^{-3 N_USR} and the dip position follows (sqrt(5)/2)(-τ_2)^{3/2}/(-τ_1)^{5/2}. Alternatively, repeat the junction calculation matching the conjugate momentum instead of the field derivative: if a finite dip still appears without the negative (-τ)^{-3} growing term, the claimed cancellation mechanism is falsified.

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

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the dip in the final curvature power spectrum is finite at linear order, with depth (5/2) P_CMB e^{-3 N_USR}; a finite dip no longer requires invoking mode coupling or smooth transitions.
  • The dip position k_dip ≈ (sqrt(5)/2)(-τ_2)^{3/2}/(-τ_1)^{5/2} gives a direct relation between the observable dip scale and the ratio of transition times—equivalently, the USR e-folding number.
  • The peak enhancement factor is ≈ 7 e^{6 N_USR} at k ≈ 4(-τ_1)^{-1}, and for large wavenumbers the spectrum approaches a plateau ≈ e^{6 N_USR}, consistent with the standard USR enhancement.
  • The wiggles in the intermediate-wavenumber region oscillate with angular frequency -2τ_1, so the oscillation pattern of the final spectrum encodes the first SR-USR transition time.
  • The dip and peak amplitudes obey P_dip/P_CMB ≈ (P_pk/P_CMB)^{-1/2}, a scaling that can be checked in any SR-USR-SR model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Implicit in the paper's picture is a diagnostic strategy: since the dip depth scales as e^{-3 N_USR} while the peak scales as e^{6 N_USR}, a future measurement of both features would determine the USR duration twice over—an over-determination that could test the whole class of models.
  • The mechanism singles out the negative (-τ)^{-3} growing branch as essential; if the same calculation were repeated with a different matching condition, for example matching the conjugate field momentum as some recent treatments do, and the dip survived without that branch, the proposed explanation would be ruled out.
  • Because the paper validates its asymptotic formulas only against the exact Hankel solution of the same idealized model, a genuine numerical test with a smooth reconstructed potential of finite transition width would quantify how much of the dip structure survives in a realistic setting; that test is a direct, untaken step suggested by the paper's own claims.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies linear perturbations (comoving curvature perturbation and field perturbation) in a slow-roll--ultra-slow-roll--slow-roll inflationary background with instantaneous transitions. Using Hankel-function solutions, the junction method, and case-dependent dominant-term expansions, it derives closed-form asymptotic expressions for the time-dependent power spectrum in three wavenumber regimes: horizon exit before USR (Case 1), during USR (Case 2), and after USR (Case 3). The main formulas are Eqs. (31), (38), (44), (56), (59), (64), (66), and (68), from which the paper extracts the dip scale, dip depth, k^4 growth, enhancement factor, and oscillations. The central novelty claimed in the abstract is that the finite dip arises from cancellation between two growing modes, rather than between constant and growing terms, and that all asymptotic results are validated numerically with a reconstructed SR-USR-SR potential.

Significance. The paper is a useful compendium of asymptotic formulas for a widely studied model. The internal algebra connecting Eq. (20) to Eq. (31) and Eq. (44) to Eqs. (48)--(53) is coherent, there are no fitted parameters, and the exact-vs-asymptotic comparisons in Figs. 2--8 provide a legitimate consistency check of the expansion scheme. The paper also correctly reproduces the known k^4 tail, the e^{6N_USR} enhancement, the dip-peak anti-correlation, and the oscillatory features. However, the headline physical interpretation is not supported by the paper's own equations (see Major Comment 1), and the abstract's claim of numerical validation with a reconstructed potential is not present in the body. The asymptotic toolkit is valuable, but the central conceptual claim needs substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. 3.1.1, Eqs. (31)--(35); Sec. 3.1.3] The claim that the finite dip arises from cancellation between two growing modes is contradicted by Eq. (31) itself. Writing t=-tau and x=k t, the two growing terms in Eq. (31) are -(4/5) x1^5 x^{-3} and +(4/25) x1^10 x^{-6}. At the dip time tau_c of Eq. (34), x_c = (2/5)^{1/3} x1^{5/3}, so these terms evaluate to -2 P_CMB and +P_CMB respectively. Their sum is -P_CMB, which exactly cancels the leading constant P_CMB of Eq. (31); the value at the dip, Eq. (35), is 2P_CMB(-k tau1)^2, which is precisely the subleading k-dependent constant term, not a growing-mode remainder. The manuscript itself states after Eq. (32) that this subleading constant term 'later produces a finite dip.' Thus the abstract's contrast with 'constant and growing terms' is not established. The two growing modes set only the dip time and cancel the leading constant; the finite dip value is a constant-mode residue. Thi
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 3 and Figs. 2--8] The abstract states that 'all asymptotic analytical results are validated by numerical calculations with the reconstructed SR-USR-SR inflationary potential.' I could not find such a calculation anywhere in the manuscript. Every comparison in Figs. 2--8 is between an asymptotic formula and the exact Hankel solution of the same piecewise model, Eq. (4) with coefficients (12)--(13). There is no reconstructed potential V(phi), no evolution of the background through a smooth SR-USR-SR transition, and no estimate of the error introduced by the instantaneous-transition idealization of Sec. 2.2. This is an internal consistency check of the expansion, not a validation of the idealized model against a realistic potential. The abstract sentence should be removed or qualified, or the missing numerical study should be added.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6); Secs. 3.1--3.3] The physical domain of validity of the results is not discussed in the context of the matching conditions. Equation (6) imposes continuity of chi and chi'. For the comoving curvature perturbation in a non-attractor phase, the correct matching may require more care with the conjugate field momentum; the paper cites Ref. [82] on this point but does not state whether Eq. (6) is compatible with that analysis. If the junction conditions change, the coefficients (12)--(13) and therefore all subsequent formulas change. I am not asking for a different model, but the manuscript should explicitly state that the results are conditional on the instantaneous matching conditions (6) and should explain why the conjugate-momentum issue raised in Ref. [82] does not affect the dip mechanism. Without this, the claimed physical relevance to realistic USR inflation remains unquantified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'asypmtotic' should be 'asymptotic.'
  2. [Sec. 2.2] 'It is clearly that A2, B2 are functions of k' should read 'It is clear that...'.
  3. [Sec. 1, three Rules] The 'three systematic rules' are presented as an algorithm, but Rule 3 ('Rule 1 must be applied prior to Rule 2') is an instruction rather than a criterion. In the two-parameter expansions of Secs. 3.1.2 and 3.3, the order of limits matters; the manuscript should state explicitly which small ratio is taken to zero first in each case. As written, the procedure is partly validated by the numerical comparisons, but the 'systematic' claim is stronger than the presentation supports.
  4. [Eq. (20)] The displayed equation for P_USR has an ambiguous line break: the term involving |A|^2+|B|^2+129(...) appears to be a numerator of the next fraction. Using a single fraction with clear parentheses would avoid confusion.
  5. [Sec. 3.1.2] In item 5, the phrase 'which is the same with Eq. (35) by accident' is imprecise. The equality follows from Eq. (40) and the definition of tau_c; 'coincidence' or 'for the same algebraic reason' would be clearer.
  6. [Appendix A, Eq. (77)] The text notes that the decaying (-tau)^2 coefficient in Eq. (77) differs from that in Eq. (20) because of neglected higher-order Hankel terms. A one-line numerical or symbolic estimate of this difference would help the reader judge whether the truncation is acceptable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: derivation is self-contained; minor peripheral self-citations only. Main caveat is that the abstract's growing-mode-cancellation mechanism is contradicted by Eq. (31), a correctness issue rather than circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The coefficients A2, B2, A3, B3 are obtained by solving the exact Hankel-mode solutions (4) with Bunch-Davies initial conditions and the junction conditions (6); no parameter is fitted to the target power spectrum. The asymptotic formulas (31), (38), (44), (59), (64), and (66) are systematic expansions of those exact coefficients, and all 'validation' plots compare the asymptotics with the exact solution of the same idealized SR-USR-SR model, i.e., an internal consistency check rather than an external fit. The dip depth (52), k^4 growth, and wiggles are derived quantities, not inputs. Refs [86] and [87] are self-citations by author C. Chen, but they appear only in lists of applications of the junction method/spectator-field perturbations and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior author work. Two non-circular issues are flagged. First, the abstract's claim that the finite dip arises from cancellation between two growing modes rather than between constant and growing terms is contradicted by the paper's own Eq. (31): at the dip time tau_c of Eq. (34), -(4/5)(-tau1)^5 k^2 (-tau_c)^-3 = -2 P_CMB and (4/25)(-tau1)^10 k^4 (-tau_c)^-6 = +P_CMB, so the growing terms sum to -P_CMB and cancel the leading constant; the finite value in Eq. (35) (and Eq. (52)) is the sub-leading constant term 2 P_CMB (-k tau1)^2, exactly as the text after Eq. (32) states ('later produces a finite dip'). This is an internal inconsistency in the causal interpretation, not a circular reduction. Second, the abstract's 'validated by numerical calculations with the reconstructed SR-USR-SR inflationary potential' is not shown in the body, which only compares with the exact Hankel solution of the same instantaneous-transition model; this is an overstated-validation concern. Neither issue makes the prediction equivalent to an input by construction, so circularity is not significant.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; τ1, τ2, H, and k are background/model inputs. The derivation relies on the instantaneous-transition approximation, order-truncation choices, and standard Hankel-function expansions. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Quasi-de Sitter approximation aH = -1/(τ(1-ε)) with ε constant, and taking ε=0 in SR/USR phases.
    Sec. 2.1, Eq. (3): the mode equation is derived assuming constant ε; the paper then sets ε=0 to obtain d=3/2 for SR and d=-3/2 for USR, even though ε evolves during USR.
  • domain assumption Instantaneous transitions with continuity of χ and χ' at τ1 and τ2.
    Sec. 2.2, Eq. (6): the junction conditions are used to derive the coefficients A2,B2,A3,B3. If a smooth potential requires different matching (cf. Ref. [82]), the results may change.
  • domain assumption Bunch-Davies vacuum initial state in the first SR phase.
    Sec. 2.1: the SR solution is fixed by assuming standard Bunch-Davies initial conditions, i.e., A=-H√π/2, B=0.
  • standard math Hankel function power series and asymptotic expansions from the NIST handbook.
    Eqs. (14) and (23) rely on standard expansions of Hankel functions, taken as background mathematical facts.
  • ad hoc to paper The three dominant-term rules, especially Rule 3 ('Rule 1 must be applied prior to Rule 2').
    Introduction: these rules are heuristics for truncating asymptotic expansions. Footnote 5 shows a regime (1<-kτ1<√6) where the resulting approximation is not robust, so the rules are not universally valid.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25554 in / 19204 out tokens · 157964 ms · 2026-08-02T23:35:52.810640+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The origin of the finite dip in the curvature power spectrum of instantaneous Slow-Roll (SR)-Ulta-Slow-Roll (USR)-SR inflation remains controversial at linear order, and its full spectral features still lack a complete asymptotic analytical description. We revisit linear perturbation dynamics in this framework. Using the junction method and asymptotic expansions of Hankel functions, we for the first time derive accurate and simple asymptotic expressions for mode evolution and the resulting power spectrum, based on three systematic rules for dominant-term identification across transitions. We find the finite dip arises from cancellation between two growing modes within linear perturbation theory, rather than between constant and growing terms as previously suggested. We also provide analytical descriptions of the amplitude enhancement and the two oscillatory patterns observed in the spectrum. All asypmtotic analytical results are validated by numerical calculations with the reconstructed SR-USR-SR inflationary potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13074 by Chao Chen, Wen Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A sketch illustrating three representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The comparison between the exact solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The comparisons between the exact solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolutions of the power spectrum P𝜒 (𝜏, 𝑘) across SR-USR-SR transitions, corresponding to Case 1 of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The final power spectrum P SR2 𝜒 (𝜏end, 𝑘) in Eq. (44) with 𝜏2 = 10−2 𝜏1 = −0.01, which features a dip at 𝑘dip expressed in Eq. (48) or equivalently Eq. (49). The spectrum is nearly scale-invariant for 𝑘 ≪ 𝑘dip/ √ 2, and transitions to a 𝑘 4 growth for 𝑘 > √ 2𝑘dip. The value of P SR2 𝜒 (𝜏end, 𝑘) is normalized by P USR 𝜒 (𝜏1, 𝑘) based on Eq. (4). which is finite and consistent with the numerical results fro… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The time evolutions of power spectra across SR-USR-SR transitions in Case 3 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The evolutions of power spectra across SR-USR-SR transitions in Case 2 for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The final power spectrum P SR2 𝜒 (𝜏end, 𝑘) in Eq. (68). It exhibits an oscillation with an angular frequency −2𝜏1 (c.f., Eq. (68)). The peak position 𝑘pk of P SR2 𝜒 (𝜏end, 𝑘) is denoted by a black dashed vertical line. The value of P SR2 𝜒 (𝜏end, 𝑘) is normalized by P SR2 𝜒 (𝜏end, 𝑘 → 𝑘2) given in Eq. (70). Examining Eq. (69), the maximum enhancement happens around the lower bound −𝑘pk𝜏1 = 1, which determi… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Scale-Dependent Loop Corrections to the Inflationary Power Spectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0

    One-loop gravitational corrections in inflationary models with scale-dependent features are renormalizable and vanish on large and small scales, preserving perturbativity of CMB-fit feature models.

  2. Fixing the Renormalization of Inflationary Loops via Ward Identities

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Ward identities from large gauge symmetry impose model-independent constraints on renormalizing inflationary loops and non-perturbatively govern the infrared power spectrum evolution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 83 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

    Y. Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Escriv `a, F

    A. Escriv `a, F. Kuhnel, and Y. Tada, (2022), 10.1016/B978-0-32-395636-9.00012-8, arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48, 043001 (2021), arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70, 355 (2020), arXiv:2006.02838 [astro- ph.CO] . 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Dom `enech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    G. Dom `enech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, Universe9, 203 (2023), arXiv:2301.03600 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Non-Gaussianities and Primordial Black Holes,

    S. Pi, “Non-Gaussianities and Primordial Black Holes,” (2025) arXiv:2404.06151 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Biagetti, G

    M. Biagetti, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, JCAP07, 032 (2018), arXiv:1804.07124 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Pattison, V

    C. Pattison, V. Vennin, H. Assadullahi, and D. Wands, JCAP08, 048 (2018), arXiv:1806.09553 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Cruces, C

    D. Cruces, C. Germani, and T. Prokopec, JCAP03, 048 (2019), arXiv:1807.09057 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Firouzjahi, A

    H. Firouzjahi, A. Nassiri-Rad, and M. Noorbala, JCAP01, 040 (2019), arXiv:1811.02175 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    V. Atal, J. Garriga, and A. Marcos-Caballero, JCAP09, 073 (2019), arXiv:1905.13202 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, J. Garc´ıa-Bellido, and V. Vennin, JCAP03, 029 (2020), arXiv:1912.05399 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    D. G. Figueroa, S. Raatikainen, S. Rasanen, and E. Tomberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 101302 (2021), arXiv:2012.06551 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    D. G. Figueroa, S. Raatikainen, S. Rasanen, and E. Tomberg, JCAP05, 027 (2022), arXiv:2111.07437 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Pattison, V

    C. Pattison, V. Vennin, D. Wands, and H. Assadullahi, JCAP04, 080 (2021), arXiv:2101.05741 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Biagetti, V

    M. Biagetti, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B820, 136602 (2021), arXiv:2105.07810 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    M. W. Davies, P. Carrilho, and D. J. Mulryne, JCAP06, 019 (2022), arXiv:2110.08189 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Cai, X.-H

    Y.-F. Cai, X.-H. Ma, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang, and Z. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B834, 137461 (2022), arXiv:2112.13836 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Cai, X.-H

    Y.-F. Cai, X.-H. Ma, M. Sasaki, D.-G. Wang, and Z. Zhou, JCAP12, 034 (2022), arXiv:2207.11910 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Pi and M

    S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 011002 (2023), arXiv:2211.13932 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Hooshangi, A

    S. Hooshangi, A. Talebian, M. H. Namjoo, and H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D105, 083525 (2022), arXiv:2201.07258 [astro-ph.CO] . 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Ahmadi, M

    N. Ahmadi, M. Noorbala, N. Feyzabadi, F. Eghbalpoor, and Z. Ahmadi, JCAP08, 078 (2022), arXiv:2207.10578 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Hooshangi, M

    S. Hooshangi, M. H. Namjoo, and M. Noorbala, JCAP09, 023 (2023), arXiv:2305.19257 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Raatikainen, S

    S. Raatikainen, S. R ¨as¨anen, and E. Tomberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121403 (2024), arXiv:2312.12911 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Tomberg, Phys

    E. Tomberg, Phys. Rev. D108, 043502 (2023), arXiv:2304.10903 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    R. Inui, H. Motohashi, S. Pi, Y. Tada, and S. Yokoyama, JCAP02, 042 (2025), arXiv:2409.13500 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    R. Inui, C. Joana, H. Motohashi, S. Pi, Y. Tada, and S. Yokoyama, JCAP03, 021 (2025), arXiv:2411.07647 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Wang, X.-H

    X. Wang, X.-H. Ma, and Y.-F. Cai, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2550027 (2025), arXiv:2412.19631 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Escriv `a, J

    A. Escriv `a, J. Garriga, and S. Pi, (2025), arXiv:2512.04986 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Caravano, G

    A. Caravano, G. Franciolini, and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys. Rev. D112, 083508 (2025), arXiv:2506.11795 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Nassiri-Rad, Phys. Rev. D112, 123541 (2025), arXiv:2509.09608 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221003 (2024), arXiv:2211.03395 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Choudhury, M

    S. Choudhury, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and M. Sami, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 884 (2024), arXiv:2301.10000 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D109, 103541 (2024), arXiv:2303.00341 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Riotto, (2023), arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    A. Riotto, (2023), arXiv:2303.01727 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda, and M. Sami, JCAP11, 066 (2023), arXiv:2303.06066 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 006 (2023), arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    H. Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 006 (2023), arXiv:2303.12025 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, JCAP02, 021 (2024), arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D108, 043532 (2023), arXiv:2305.01527 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Franciolini, A

    G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., M. Taoso, and A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D109, 123550 (2024), arXiv:2305.03491 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Cheng, D.-S

    S.-L. Cheng, D.-S. Lee, and K.-W. Ng, JCAP03, 008 (2024), arXiv:2305.16810 [astro-ph.CO] . 27

    arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Fumagalli, JHEP05, 162 (2025), arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Fumagalli, JHEP05, 162 (2025), arXiv:2305.19263 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Fumagalli, S

    J. Fumagalli, S. Bhattacharya, M. Peloso, S. Renaux-Petel, and L. T. Witkowski, JCAP04, 029 (2024), arXiv:2307.08358 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Maity, H

    S. Maity, H. V. Ragavendra, S. K. Sethi, and L. Sriramkumar, JCAP05, 046 (2024), arXiv:2307.13636 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Y. Tada, T. Terada, and J. Tokuda, JHEP01, 105 (2024), arXiv:2308.04732 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D109, 043514 (2024), arXiv:2311.04080 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    M. W. Davies, L. Iacconi, and D. J. Mulryne, JCAP04, 050 (2024), arXiv:2312.05694 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Iacconi, D

    L. Iacconi, D. Mulryne, and D. Seery, JCAP06, 062 (2024), arXiv:2312.12424 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Firouzjahi, Phys

    H. Firouzjahi, Phys. Rev. D110, 043519 (2024), arXiv:2403.03841 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 141001 (2024), arXiv:2403.04682 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Ballesteros and J

    G. Ballesteros and J. Gamb ´ın Egea, JCAP07, 052 (2024), arXiv:2404.07196 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Fumagalli, JHEP01, 108 (2025), arXiv:2408.08296 [astro-ph.CO]

    J. Fumagalli, JHEP01, 108 (2025), arXiv:2408.08296 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Caravano, G

    A. Caravano, G. Franciolini, and S. Renaux-Petel, Phys. Rev. D111, 063518 (2025), arXiv:2410.23942 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Firouzjahi, Universe10, 456 (2024), arXiv:2411.10253 [hep-ph]

    H. Firouzjahi, Universe10, 456 (2024), arXiv:2411.10253 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D111, 103504 (2025), arXiv:2502.08707 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Fang, Z.-H

    C.-J. Fang, Z.-H. Lyu, C. Chen, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D112, 023547 (2025), arXiv:2502.09555 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D111, 123517 (2025), arXiv:2502.12112 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.13136 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, (2025), arXiv:2504.18514 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Y. Ema, M. Hong, R. Jinno, and K. Mukaida, JCAP01, 040 (2026), arXiv:2506.15780 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Fang, Z.-H

    C.-J. Fang, Z.-H. Lyu, C. Chen, and Z.-K. Guo, (2025), arXiv:2507.00077 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Iacconi, D

    L. Iacconi, D. Mulryne, and D. Seery, (2026), arXiv:2601.14229 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Phys. Rev. D69, 084005 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307463

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  65. [65]

    W. H. Kinney, Phys. Rev. D72, 023515 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0503017 . 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  66. [66]

    M. H. Namjoo, H. Firouzjahi, and M. Sasaki, EPL101, 39001 (2013), arXiv:1210.3692 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [67]

    Martin, H

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  68. [68]

    Motohashi, A

    H. Motohashi, A. A. Starobinsky, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP09, 018 (2015), arXiv:1411.5021 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    Motohashi, S

    H. Motohashi, S. Mukohyama, and M. Oliosi, JCAP03, 002 (2020), arXiv:1910.13235 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Motohashi (2025) arXiv:2504.16757 [astro-ph.CO]

    H. Motohashi (2025) arXiv:2504.16757 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    K. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B775, 262 (2017), arXiv:1707.05644 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  72. [72]

    Germani and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    C. T. Byrnes, P. S. Cole, and S. P. Patil, JCAP06, 028 (2019), arXiv:1811.11158 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    Carrilho, K

    P. Carrilho, K. A. Malik, and D. J. Mulryne, Phys. Rev. D100, 103529 (2019), arXiv:1907.05237 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

    O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, JCAP04, 048 (2020), arXiv:1912.01061 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    Tasinato, Phys

    G. Tasinato, Phys. Rev. D103, 023535 (2021), arXiv:2012.02518 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    P. S. Cole, A. D. Gow, C. T. Byrnes, and S. P. Patil, JCAP05, 022 (2024), arXiv:2204.07573 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Zhao and N

    J.-X. Zhao and N. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 222 (2024), arXiv:2403.01416 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Garcia-Bellido and E

    J. Garcia-Bellido and E. Ruiz Morales, Phys. Dark Univ.18, 47 (2017), arXiv:1702.03901 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  80. [80]

    R. Zhai, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Phys. Rev. D108, 043529 (2023), arXiv:2308.09286 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.