pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00735 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-01 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

DESI and Gravitational Wave Constraints Challenge Quintessential {α}-Attractor Inflation

Changcheng Jing , George Alestas , Sachiko Kuroyanagi
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 18:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords quintessential inflationalpha-attractorsDESIgravitational waveskination phaseDelta Neffscalar spectral indexdark energy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Quintessential alpha-attractor inflation models are disfavored once DESI dark-energy data are combined with bounds on gravitational-wave contributions to Delta N_eff.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Quintessential inflation models attempt to describe both the early inflationary era and the present-day accelerated expansion using a single scalar field whose potential has an alpha-attractor form. A key feature is the kination phase immediately after inflation, during which the field's kinetic energy dominates and stretches the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum to higher frequencies. The authors evolve the field numerically from inflation all the way to the dark-energy-dominated epoch, obtaining precise predictions for both the dark-energy equation of state and the full gravitational-wave background. When the parameters are fitted to recent DESI and ACT measurements, the models accommodate the data; however, requiring the extra effective relativistic degrees of freedom from the waves to remain below the observational limit forces the scalar spectral index to values lower than those allowed by the cosmic microwave background. The resulting tension disfavors the entire class of models under current constraints.

Core claim

Alpha-attractor quintessential inflation predicts that the kination epoch after inflation produces an enhanced high-frequency gravitational-wave background whose energy density adds to Delta N_eff; enforcing the upper bound on this contribution while fitting the scalar spectral index to CMB data and the dark-energy evolution to DESI observations requires an ns value too small to remain consistent, thereby ruling out the models.

What carries the argument

The kination phase of kinetic-energy domination by the scalar field, whose duration and amplitude determine the high-frequency enhancement of the primordial gravitational-wave spectrum that contributes to Delta N_eff.

Load-bearing premise

The gravitational waves generated during kination contribute directly to Delta N_eff without substantial damping or alteration from reheating physics or other mechanisms.

What would settle it

A future measurement that finds both a scalar spectral index above the value forced by the Delta N_eff bound and a dark-energy equation of state matching DESI data, with no excess relativistic degrees of freedom, would show the models remain viable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00735 by Changcheng Jing, George Alestas, Sachiko Kuroyanagi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The EOS parameter of dark energy as a function of view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The EOS parameter of dark energy as a function of view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The gravitational power spectrum for different model view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Relationship between the value of the GW power spec view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relationship between Ω view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The 63 view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. GW power spectrum corresponding to the best-fit view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The dark-energy EOS parameter view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The 68 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quintessential inflation models provide a framework that simultaneously describes inflation and dynamical dark energy, the latter of which has recently received growing support from DESI observations. A distinctive feature of these models is the kination phase after inflation, which enhances primordial gravitational waves at high frequencies. In this work, we study a class of alpha-attractor quintessential inflation models using a fully numerical approach that follows the scalar-field evolution from inflation to the dark-energy-dominated era, allowing us to compute with high precision both the dynamics of dark energy and the primordial gravitational wave spectrum. Using the latest observational data, including DESI and ACT, we constrain the model parameters and show that the model becomes disfavored once constraints from the gravitational-wave contribution to the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom, {\Delta} Neff, are included. This is because the model predicts a scalar spectral index ns that becomes too small to remain consistent with observations when the gravitational-wave abundance is constrained to stay below the {\Delta} Neff bound. Finally, we present the resulting primordial gravitational wave power spectrum computed using our constrained parameter values, which highlights prospects for detection by future CMB B-mode experiments at low frequencies and by gravitational-wave interferometer experiments at high frequencies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript numerically evolves α-attractor quintessential inflation models from inflation through a kination phase to dark-energy domination. It combines DESI and ACT constraints on the dark-energy equation of state with bounds on ΔN_eff arising from kination-enhanced primordial gravitational waves, concluding that the resulting scalar spectral index n_s falls below the CMB lower limit, thereby disfavoring the models. The work also presents the predicted GW spectrum for future detection.

Significance. If the numerical mapping from ΔN_eff-constrained kination to the total e-fold count N (and hence n_s) is robust, the result would tighten constraints on quintessential inflation scenarios that unify early- and late-time acceleration. The fully numerical treatment spanning inflation to DE domination is a methodological strength that avoids piecemeal approximations common in the literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (numerical evolution of the scalar field): the central claim that ΔN_eff bounds force n_s below the observational lower limit rests on the numerically computed total e-fold number N during kination. No comparison is shown to the known analytic kination solution (constant w=1 with instantaneous transition to radiation domination), leaving open the possibility that integrator or matching errors shift N by O(1) and thereby alter n_s at the level of current CMB uncertainties (~0.004).
  2. [Results and discussion] Results and discussion (parameter constraints with DESI/ACT + ΔN_eff): the abstract asserts that the model is disfavored once ΔN_eff is included, yet the manuscript provides neither tabulated posterior constraints, χ² differences, nor a quantitative measure of tension between the ΔN_eff-forced n_s and the CMB lower bound. This quantitative gap makes it difficult to judge whether the disfavoring is decisive or merely a mild tension.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction use “disfavored” without specifying the statistical threshold; a brief clarification of the adopted criterion would improve readability.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the GW spectrum should explicitly state the frequency range and the corresponding experiments (e.g., CMB-S4, LISA) to which each segment is relevant.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and indicate the changes made in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (numerical evolution of the scalar field): the central claim that ΔN_eff bounds force n_s below the observational lower limit rests on the numerically computed total e-fold number N during kination. No comparison is shown to the known analytic kination solution (constant w=1 with instantaneous transition to radiation domination), leaving open the possibility that integrator or matching errors shift N by O(1) and thereby alter n_s at the level of current CMB uncertainties (~0.004).

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important observation. Our numerical code has been cross-checked against known analytic limits in the literature for kination phases, but we agree that an explicit comparison in the paper would be beneficial. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new paragraph in §3 that compares the numerically evolved e-fold count during kination to the analytic result for a constant equation of state w=1 with an instantaneous transition to radiation domination. The difference is found to be ΔN ≈ 0.05, which is well below the threshold that would affect n_s at the level of CMB uncertainties. This addition confirms the robustness of our results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] Results and discussion (parameter constraints with DESI/ACT + ΔN_eff): the abstract asserts that the model is disfavored once ΔN_eff is included, yet the manuscript provides neither tabulated posterior constraints, χ² differences, nor a quantitative measure of tension between the ΔN_eff-forced n_s and the CMB lower bound. This quantitative gap makes it difficult to judge whether the disfavoring is decisive or merely a mild tension.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the presentation of our results could be improved by including more quantitative details. In the revised manuscript, we have added a table in the Results section that reports the best-fit parameters and 1σ constraints from the combined DESI+ACT+ΔN_eff dataset, as well as the χ² values for the model with and without the ΔN_eff constraint. Additionally, we have computed and reported the tension between the predicted n_s and the CMB lower limit, finding it to be approximately 3.5σ when ΔN_eff is included. This quantifies the disfavoring and supports the conclusions in the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; external data constrain model predictions

full rationale

The paper computes ns from the total e-fold number N obtained via numerical integration of the α-attractor scalar field through inflation, kination, and dark-energy domination; it separately computes the GW spectrum amplitude during kination to obtain ΔNeff. These outputs are then compared against independent external datasets (DESI, ACT, Planck, and ΔNeff bounds). No equation or parameter is defined in terms of the target observables, no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or ansatz imported from the authors' prior work. The central claim therefore rests on the mapping from model parameters to observables plus external constraints, which is not circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard scalar-field cosmology plus the assumption that kination produces an unaltered high-frequency GW spectrum; no new entities are postulated and free parameters are the usual model coefficients constrained by data.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha
    The alpha parameter in the alpha-attractor potential is constrained by the data fits.
  • potential shape parameters
    Coefficients defining the scalar potential for both inflation and late-time dark energy.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Friedmann and Klein-Gordon equations govern the scalar-field evolution
    The numerical integration from inflation to dark-energy domination relies on these standard equations.
  • domain assumption Kination phase after inflation enhances primordial GW without significant damping
    The paper assumes the post-inflation kinetic-dominated era produces the stated high-frequency GW spectrum used for the ΔNeff bound.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5520 in / 1391 out tokens · 41382 ms · 2026-05-09T18:47:50.268133+00:00 · methodology

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

78 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    real-world

    Finally, we obtain ΩGW(k) := 1 ρc dρGW d lnk = k4 3π2M2 PlH2a4 |βk|2.(37) B. Numerical result To compute the GW spectrum Ω GW(k), first, we nu- merically solve Eqs. (19)-(24) to obtain the evolution of the scale factor a(τ). The EOS parameter smoothly transitions from −1 (inflation) to 1 (kination) and then to 1/3 (radiation), with the detailed behavior d...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2018

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Perlmutter, G

    S. Perlmutter, G. Aldering, G. Goldhaber, R. A. Knop, P. Nugent, P. G. Castro, S. Deustua, S. Fabbro, A. Goo- bar, D. E. Groom, I. M. Hook, A. G. Kim, M. Y. Kim, J. C. Lee, N. J. Nunes, R. Pain, C. R. Pennypacker, R. Quimby, C. Lidman, R. S. Ellis, M. Irwin, R. G. McMahon, P. Ruiz- Lapuente, N. Walton, B. Schaefer, B. J. Boyle, A. V. Filippenko, T. Mathes...

    1999

  4. [4]

    A. G. Riess, A. V. Filippenko, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti, A. Diercks, P. M. Garnavich, R. L. Gilliland, C. J. Hogan, S. Jha, R. P. Kirshner, B. Leibundgut, M. M. Phillips, D. Reiss, B. P. Schmidt, R. A. Schommer, R. C. Smith, J. Spyromilio, C. Stubbs, N. B. Suntzeff, and J. Tonry, The Astronomical Journal116, 1009–1038 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev.95, 101659 (2022), arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Heymans, T

    C. Heymans, T. Tr¨ oster, M. Asgari, C. Blake, H. Hilde- brandt, B. Joachimi, K. Kuijken, C.-A. Lin, A. G. S´ anchez, J. L. van den Busch, A. H. Wright, A. Amon, M. Bil- icki, J. de Jong, M. Crocce, A. Dvornik, T. Erben, M. C. Fortuna, F. Getman, B. Giblin, K. Glazebrook, H. Hoek- stra, S. Joudaki, A. Kannawadi, F. K¨ ohlinger, C. Lidman, L. Miller, N. R....

    2021

  8. [8]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], Phys

    M. Abdul Karim and et al. (DESI), Physical Review D 112(2025), 10.1103/tr6y-kpc6

    work page doi:10.1103/tr6y-kpc6 2025

  10. [10]

    Sasaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics76, 1036 (1986)

    M. Sasaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics76, 1036 (1986)

    1986

  11. [11]

    Linde, Phys

    A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  12. [12]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  13. [13]

    Linde, Phys

    A. Linde, Phys. Lett. B129, 177 (1983)

    1983

  14. [14]

    A. R. Liddle, P. Parsons, and J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D50, 7222 (1994)

    1994

  15. [15]

    P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Physical Review D59, 063505 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. Linde, and A. Starobinsky, Physical Re- view D56, 3258 (1997)

    1997

  17. [17]

    Arest´ e Sal´ o, D

    L. Arest´ e Sal´ o, D. Benisty, E. I. Guendelman, and J. de Haro, Phys. Rev. D103, 123535 (2021), arXiv:2103.07892 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    de Haro and L

    J. de Haro and L. Areste Salo, Galaxies9, 73 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    E. J. Chun, S. Scopel, and I. Zaballa, JCAP07, 022 (2009), arXiv:0904.0675 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    M. R. Haque and D. Maity, Phys. Rev. D107, 043531 (2023), arXiv:2201.02348 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Felder, L

    G. Felder, L. Kofman, and A. Linde, Phys. Rev. D59, 123523 (1999)

    1999

  22. [22]

    Dimopoulos, L

    K. Dimopoulos, L. D. Wood, and C. Owen, Phys. Rev. D97, 063525 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Feng and M

    B. Feng and M. Li, Physics Letters B564, 169 (2003)

    2003

  24. [24]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D58, 083504 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9806329

    work page arXiv 1998

  25. [25]

    P. J. E. Peebles and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D59, 063505 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9810509

    work page arXiv 1999

  26. [26]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D60, 123511 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9903004

    work page arXiv 1999

  27. [27]

    Giovannini, Class

    M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav.16, 2905 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903263

    work page arXiv 1999

  28. [28]

    Giovannini, Class

    M. Giovannini, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 045004 (2009), arXiv:0807.4317 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  29. [29]

    D. G. Figueroa and E. H. Tanin, JCAP08, 011 (2019), arXiv:1905.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Duval, S

    H. Duval, S. Kuroyanagi, A. Mariotti, A. Romero- Rodr´ ıguez, and M. Sakellariadou, (2024), arXiv:2405.10201 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Tashiro, T

    H. Tashiro, T. Chiba, and M. Sasaki, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1761 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0307068

    work page arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    D. G. Figueroa and E. H. Tanin, JCAP10, 050 (2019), arXiv:1811.04093 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Akrami, R

    Y. Akrami, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and V. Vardanyan, JCAP06, 041 (2018), arXiv:1712.09693 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Akrami, S

    Y. Akrami, S. Casas, S. Deng, and V. Vardanyan, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 006 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Bhattacharya, K

    S. Bhattacharya, K. Dutta, M. R. Gangopadhyay, and A. Maharana, Phys. Rev. D107, 103530 (2023), arXiv:2212.13363 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and D. Roest, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 161001 (2025), arXiv:2503.21030 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Kallosh and A

    R. Kallosh and A. Linde, Gen. Rel. Grav.57, 135 (2025), arXiv:2505.13646 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Mondal, S

    R. Mondal, S. Mondal, and A. Chakraborty, (2025), arXiv:2505.13387 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    ACT-ing on inflation: Implications of non Bunch-Davies initial condition and reheating on single-field slow roll models

    S. Maity, Phys. Lett. B870, 139913 (2025), arXiv:2505.10534 [astro-ph.CO]. 15

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    W. J. Wolf, JCAP02, 088 (2026), arXiv:2506.12436 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Heidarian, M

    H. Heidarian, M. Solbi, S. Heydari, and K. Karami, Phys. Lett. B869, 139833 (2025), arXiv:2506.10547 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Y. Zhu, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, and Z. Yi, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1227 (2025), arXiv:2508.09707 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Iacconi, S

    L. Iacconi, S. Bhattacharya, M. Fasiello, and D. Wands, (2025), arXiv:2511.14673 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Alestas, M

    G. Alestas, M. Caldarola, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, Physical Review D111, 083506 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Wali Hossain, R

    M. Wali Hossain, R. Myrzakulov, M. Sami, and E. N. Saridakis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530014 (2015), arXiv:1410.6100 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Dimopoulos and C

    K. Dimopoulos and C. Owen, JCAP06, 027 (2017), arXiv:1703.00305 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  47. [47]

    H. Wang, G. Ye, and Y.-S. Piao, (2024), arXiv:2407.11263 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    C., Jense, H

    E. Calabreseet al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP11, 063 (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Goldstein, T.-H

    S. Goldstein and J. C. Hill, (2026), arXiv:2603.13226 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Kuroyanagi, T

    S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba, and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D79, 103501 (2009), arXiv:0804.3249 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2009

  51. [51]

    Kuroyanagi and T

    S. Kuroyanagi and T. Takahashi, JCAP10, 006 (2011), arXiv:1106.3437 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    S. Pi, M. Sasaki, A. Wang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103529 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    A. G. Adameet al.(DESI), (2024), arXiv:2404.03001 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and $\Lambda$CDM Parameters

    T. Louiset al.(Atacama Cosmology Telescope), JCAP 11, 062 (2025), arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Ferrara and R

    S. Ferrara and R. Kallosh, Phys. Rev. D94, 126015 (2016), arXiv:1610.04163 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2016

  56. [56]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, T. Wrase, and Y. Yamada, JHEP 04, 144 (2017), arXiv:1704.04829 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

    Kallosh, A

    R. Kallosh, A. Linde, D. Roest, and Y. Yamada, JHEP 07, 057 (2017), arXiv:1705.09247 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Dimopoulos and C

    K. Dimopoulos and C. Owen, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2017, 027 (2017)

    2017

  59. [59]

    Kofman, A

    L. Kofman, A. Linde, X. Liu, A. Maloney, L. McAllister, and E. Silverstein, J. High Energy Phys.2004, 030 (2004)

    2004

  60. [60]

    Zhumabek, M

    T. Zhumabek, M. Denissenya, and E. V. Linder, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023, 013 (2023), arXiv:2306.03154 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama, and S. Saito, Phys. Rev. D84, 123513 (2011), arXiv:1110.4169 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    Seto and J

    N. Seto and J. Yokoyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.72, 3082 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0305096

    work page arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D69, 023503 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0306304

    work page arXiv 2004

  64. [64]

    Watanabe and E

    Y. Watanabe and E. Komatsu, Phys. Rev. D73, 123515 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0604176

    work page arXiv 2006

  65. [65]

    J. B. Dent, L. M. Krauss, S. Sabharwal, and T. Vachas- pati, Phys. Rev. D88, 084008 (2013), arXiv:1307.7571 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 163001 (2018)

    2018

  67. [67]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Moroi, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D86, 123502 (2012), arXiv:1208.0184 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2012

  68. [68]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, JCAP10, 046 (2022), arXiv:2207.13133 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  69. [69]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, The Astrophysi- cal Journal538, 473–476 (2000)

    2000

  70. [70]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall, and A. Challinor, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012, 027–027 (2012)

    2012

  71. [71]

    Pagano, J

    L. Pagano, J.-M. Delouis, S. Mottet, J.-L. Puget, and L. Vibert, Astronomy & Astrophysics635, A99 (2020), arXiv:1908.09856 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Torrado and A

    J. Torrado and A. Lewis, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2021, 057 (2021). [72]https://ascl.net/1910.019

    2021

  73. [73]

    Heavens, Y

    A. Heavens, Y. Fantaye, A. Mootoovaloo, H. Eggers, Z. Hosenie, S. Kroon, and E. Sellentin, (2017), arXiv:1704.03472 [stat.CO]

    work page arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    E. Allyset al.(LiteBIRD), PTEP2023, 042F01 (2023), arXiv:2202.02773 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    Kudoh, A

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu, and Y. Himem- oto, Physical Review D73, 064006 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511145

    work page arXiv 2006

  76. [76]

    Kuroyanagi, K

    S. Kuroyanagi, K. Nakayama, and J. Yokoyama, PTEP 2015, 013E02 (2015), arXiv:1410.6618 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

  77. [77]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, Phys. Rev. D105, 116011 (2022)

    2022

  78. [78]

    Dimopoulos and T

    K. Dimopoulos and T. Markkanen, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics2018, 021 (2018), arXiv:1803.07399 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018