Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Observable Gravitational Wave Strain at Second Order

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The gravitational wave strain a detector measures at second order in cosmological perturbation theory is exactly the transverse-traceless metric perturbation in the Newton gauge — an identification that resolves the gauge ambiguity in predi

desk verdict Real step toward settling the induced-GW gauge question, with a clean Newton-gauge answer—but the load-bearing algebra is deferred, so treat the result as conditional until the companion derivation is out. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.15704 v3 pith:FSZDXWB2 submitted 2025-12-17 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Guillem Domènech , Shi Pi , Ao Wang This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-phhep-th MSC 83C3583C2583F05 PACS 04.30.-w98.80.-k
keywords gravitationalwavessecond-orderperturbationtheorygaugeinvarianceinducedNewtontransverse-tracelessstraincosmicgeodesicclocktimedelay
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 establishes what a gravitational-wave detector actually measures at second order in cosmological perturbation theory. By modeling a cosmic geodesic clock — two free-falling observers exchanging light signals — the authors compute the gauge-invariant time delay and redshift caused by gravitational waves without fixing a gauge. They find that the quadrupole part of the second-order time delay is proportional to the gauge-invariant combination that equals the transverse-traceless metric in the Newton gauge. If correct, this settles the gauge ambiguity plaguing predictions for induced gravitational waves: spectra computed in the Newton gauge are the physical, observable ones. The result also clarifies that a time-independent constant strain does not affect redshift-based measurements but behaves like a memory effect in time-delay measurements.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the cosmic geodesic clock: two geodesic observers (generalized to a sphere of detectors to isolate the quadrupole) exchanging null geodesics in a perturbed FLRW spacetime. The second-order time delay is obtained by iteratively solving the null condition and the boundary condition at reception in terms of proper time. The load-bearing identity is Eq. (8)/(11): after integration by parts, the quadrupole part of the time delay and redshift is a line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2)_ij, with h_N^(2)_ij (Eq. 9) defined as the TT part of the metric in Newton gauge plus scalar-squared corrections. The quadrupole selection — terms proportional to n^i n^j — is what picks out grav

What would settle it

Perform an independent, full second-order integration of the null geodesic and boundary equations (without using Eq. E14) including scalar-tensor source terms; if the quadrupole time delay differs from the line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2) by gauge-dependent boundary terms, the identification fails. A numerical simulation of induced GWs that computes the geodesic-clock response exactly and compares with the Newton-gauge h_N^(2) prediction would settle it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the gravitational wave strain measured by geodesic observers exchanging electromagnetic signals at second order in cosmological perturbation theory coincides with the transverse-traceless (TT) components of the spatial metric in the Newton gauge. Concretely, the second-order time delay τ_rf^(2) and the induced redshift z_GW^(2) receive quadrupole contributions proportional to the line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2)_ij, where h_N^(2)_ij ≡ h_ij^(2) + P_ij^lk(σ_l^(1)σ_k^(1) + E_,lm^(1)E_,mk^(1)) is the gauge-invariant combination that reduces to the TT part in Newton gauge. Since the computation is performed without fixing any gauge, the identification is not a coordinate ar

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the completeness and correctness of the compressed second-order derivation — especially the integration by parts in Eq. (E14), whose full details are deferred to a companion paper — and on h_N^(2) as defined (including only scalar-squared terms) being the complete gauge-invariant transverse-traceless strain for all sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Induced gravitational wave spectra computed in the Newton gauge become the direct, gauge-free prediction for pulsar timing arrays, space-borne interferometers, and Doppler tracking.
  • A time-independent constant strain does not contribute to the redshift or timing residual, so it will be invisible to standard PTA and CMB B-mode searches; only time-delay measurements calibrated before the strain builds up can see it as a memory effect.
  • The identification applies to any cosmic GW source, not just scalar-induced ones, so Newton-gauge tensor predictions are generally what detectors measure.
  • The separate gauge ambiguity in defining the GW energy density and its backreaction on the background is explicitly not settled by this work; strain observability and energy-density gauge issues remain distinct.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: A direct experimental cross-check would be to reconstruct the line-of-sight integral of h_N^(2)' from PTA timing residuals and compare it with Newton-gauge predictions computed from the same primordial scalar spectrum; agreement would confirm the identification beyond the theoretical derivation.
  • Inference: The geodesic-clock calculation suggests that a future space-borne constellation of free-falling satellites exchanging inter-satellite laser links could measure the second-order strain in a genuinely gauge-free way, effectively realizing the sphere-of-detectors thought experiment.
  • Inference: Extending the computation to include scalar-tensor terms would either confirm h_N^(2) as the full observable or reveal residual gauge dependence; this is the most direct next test of the claim's scope.
  • Inference: If the constant-mode memory effect is real, then detectors calibrated before an early matter-dominated era could in principle see a permanent displacement of test masses; a null result would constrain how such modes are generated or whether they couple to detectors at all.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper computes, at second order in cosmological perturbation theory, the proper-time delay and redshift of electromagnetic signals exchanged between two geodesic observers in a perturbed FLRW universe, without fixing a gauge. Restricting to the quadrupole (n_i n_j) part of the signal, the authors claim that the time delay (Eq. 8) and redshift (Eq. 11) depend on the gauge-invariant combination h_N^(2)_ij defined in Eq. (9), which coincides with the transverse-traceless component of the spatial metric in the Newton gauge. The paper concludes that the Newton-gauge TT strain is the physical observable for induced GWs, thereby settling the long-standing gauge debate.

Significance. If correct, this is an important step: it provides an operational, gauge-invariant definition of second-order GW strain and justifies the common practice of computing induced GW spectra in the Newton gauge. The paper validates the first-order formalism against known results (e.g., the PTA redshift, Eq. 10) and explicitly constructs gauge-invariant quantities. However, the central second-order identity is not fully derived in this manuscript and relies on an unpublished companion paper, so the significance is conditional at this stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [End Matter, Eq. (E14)] The main result (8) rests on the unstated identity 'After several integration by parts...' in Eq. (E14). This step connects the second-order null-geodesic integral (E13) to the claimed quadrupole form; it is sensitive to boundary terms and to first-order photon/observer displacements. The full derivation is deferred to ref. [62] (in preparation), so the central claim cannot be verified from the manuscript alone. Please provide the explicit intermediate algebra, including all boundary terms, or an appendix with the complete derivation. In addition, an independent check would be valuable, e.g., the de Sitter or flat-space limit, or a numerical/gauge-transformation consistency test.
  2. [End Matter, after Eq. (E23)] The statement that 'second-order geodesics does not contribute to the quadrupole' is asserted without demonstration. If this cancellation is incomplete, additional observer-motion terms would appear in Eq. (8) and the identification with h_N^(2) would fail. Please show explicitly how Eqs. (E20)-(E23) cancel in Eq. (E24), or provide the calculation.
  3. [Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion claim the result holds for 'any cosmic source' and that the gauge issue of induced GWs is settled, but the computation only includes scalar-squared contributions to h_N^(2) (Eq. 9); the paper later states that scalar-tensor contributions are left for future work. The claim should be scoped to scalar-scalar induced GWs, or the full gauge-invariant tensor combination for all sources must be defined and shown to emerge from the same calculation.
  4. [Conclusion, non-geodesic observers] The generalization to non-geodesic detectors such as LIGO is asserted, not derived. The sentence 'external forces only affect the subtraction...' is not obvious and should either be justified or explicitly marked as a conjecture.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (7)] The h_ij term appears to be missing the factor 1/2 that is present in Eq. (3a) and Eq. (10). Please check the consistency of this expression with the time-delay result.
  2. [Eq. (8)] The coefficient \frac{a'_{rf}}{2a^2_{rf}} - \frac{a^4_{rf}}{2w^2_f} L is not transparent dimensionally; please verify the prefactor and clarify the definition of w_f.
  3. [General] There are typographical errors such as 'infinitessimal' and 'milisecond'; also, the figure referenced in the text is not reproduced in the manuscript text provided, so its readability cannot be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction; the central result is a direct (though compressed) geodesic calculation, with self-citations supplying definitions rather than the answer.

full rationale

The central relation Eq. (8) is not obtained by defining the time delay to equal h_N^(2)_ij; it is stated as the outcome of the second-order null-geodesic integration, with h_N^(2)_ij (Eq. 9) a previously constructed gauge-invariant TT combination [63]. The paper's new claim is the identification of the quadrupole part of the time delay/redshift with that combination. No equation in the manuscript sets the observable equal to h_N^(2) by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only genuinely self-referential load is the definition of h_N^(2) from the same group's earlier work and the benchmark [51]; these are mathematical definitions or an assumption, not an unverified uniqueness theorem, and the present computation is not logically forced by them. The main omissions — the compressed 'After several integration by parts...' step at End Matter Eq. (E14), full details deferred to the in-preparation companion paper [62], the restriction to scalar-squared contributions, and the asserted but not derived extension to non-geodesic LIGO observers — are completeness/verifiability concerns rather than circular reductions. Accordingly no significant circularity is found; score 2 reflects the minor self-citation and deferred-proof caveats.

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

No numbers are fitted: the paper is a pure perturbative computation. The assumptions are structural: neglect of vectors, restriction to the n_i n_j (quadrupole) sector as the GW effect, adoption of h_N^(2) from the authors' prior work [63] as the relevant gauge-invariant combination, and the geodesic EM-observer model standing in for general GW detectors. None introduce free parameters, but each delimits the scope of the 'settling the debate' claim.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard cosmological perturbation theory to second order about a flat FLRW background (metric Eq. 2), including scalar-vector-tensor decomposition.
    Used throughout; no alternative framework is considered. Background geodesic/affine setup is standard.
  • domain assumption Vector fluctuations are neglected ('ignoring vector fluctuations for simplicity', near Eq. 2).
    Consistent for scalar-scalar induced GWs but restricts the generality of the claim.
  • domain assumption The GW contribution is isolated as the n^i n^j (quadrupole) part of the time delay/redshift; all ΔX observer-motion terms are classified as non-GW.
    Loaded into the definition of 'measured strain'; a different decomposition would give a different measured quantity. Discussed near Eqs. (8) and (11).
  • domain assumption h_N^(2)_ij (Eq. 9), taken from ref [63], is the complete gauge-invariant TT combination relevant at second order.
    Only scalar-squared corrections σσ and ∇∇E are included; scalar-tensor and tensor-tensor contributions are not computed (explicitly deferred in the Conclusion).
  • domain assumption Geodesic observers exchanging EM signals faithfully represent GW detectors; non-geodesic detectors (LIGO) behave identically for the propagating GW part.
    Asserted in the Conclusion; the geodesic-deviation check of h_N^(2) is left to future work.
  • domain assumption Initial-condition terms in the time delay (Eqs. 5-6) can be removed by calibration or by using the redshift observable.
    The paper shows redshift removes them; for the time delay, dropping initial displacements is a stated choice (text preceding Eq. 8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observable Gravitational Wave Strain at Second Order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FSZDXWB2

@misc{pith2026251215704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observable Gravitational Wave Strain at Second Order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FSZDXWB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.15704}
}
read the original abstract

There is currently no rigorous definition of gravitational wave strain at second order in cosmological perturbation theory. The usual association of gravitational waves with transverse and traceless fluctuations of the metric on spatial hypersurfaces becomes ambiguous at second order, as it inherently depends on the spacetime slicing. While this poses no practical issues in linearized gravity, it presents a fundamental problem for secondary gravitational waves, especially notorious for gravitational waves induced by primordial fluctuations. We compute, for the first time, the observable gravitational wave strain at second order, as measured by geodesic observers that emit and receive electromagnetic signals, thereby settling the debate on gauge ambiguities. Working in a gauge invariant fashion, we find that the measured gravitational wave strain coincides with the transverse-traceless components in the Newton gauge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.15704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Scalar-induced gravitational waves from a box-shaped curvature power spectrum

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    Analytic SIGW spectra for a log-box curvature power spectrum: narrow-box geometric overlap factor turning IR slope k^{3}ln^{2}k into k^{2}ln^{2}k, plus broad-box product of universal edge functions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [62]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, and A. Wang (2025), in preparation

    2025

  2. [63]

    Dom` enech and M

    G. Dom` enech and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D97, 023521 (2018), arXiv:1709.09804 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [2]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA), Astron. Astrophys.678, A48 (2023), arXiv:2306.16224 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys. 685, A94 (2024), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 99 references
  1. [7]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Zicet al., Publ

    A. Zicet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.40, e049 (2023), arXiv:2306.16230 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L7 (2023), arXiv:2306.16229 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Xuet al., Res

    H. Xuet al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Binetruy, A

    P. Binetruy, A. Bohe, C. Caprini, and J.-F. Dufaux, JCAP06, 027, arXiv:1201.0983 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  6. [12]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Dom` enech and S

    G. Dom` enech and S. Pi, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 65, 230411 (2022), arXiv:2010.03976 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Roshan and G

    R. Roshan and G. White, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 015001 (2025), arXiv:2401.04388 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, A. Wang, and J. Wang, JCAP08, 6 054, arXiv:2402.18965 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  10. [16]

    Bianet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    L. Bianet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    2025

  11. [17]

    Tomita, Prog

    K. Tomita, Prog. Theor. Phys.37, 831 (1967)

    1967

  12. [18]

    Matarrese, O

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, Phys. Rev. D47, 1311 (1993)

    1993

  13. [19]

    Matarrese, O

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 320 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310036

    1994 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Bruni, S

    M. Bruni, S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and S. Sonego, Class. Quant. Grav.14, 2585 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9609040

    1997

  15. [21]

    Matarrese and S

    S. Matarrese and S. Mollerach, inERE - Spanish Rela- tivity Conference(1996) arXiv:astro-ph/9705168

    1996 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Matarrese, S

    S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D 58, 043504 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707278

    1998 arXiv

  17. [23]

    K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D75, 123518 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612013

    2007 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Baumann, P

    D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi, and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D76, 084019 (2007), arXiv:hep- th/0703290

    2007

  19. [25]

    Yuan and Q.-G

    C. Yuan and Q.-G. Huang, iScience24, 102860 (2021), arXiv:2103.04739 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [26]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    2020 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Saito and J

    R. Saito and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 161101 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 107, 069901 (2011)], arXiv:0812.4339 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [29]

    R.-g. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201101 (2019), arXiv:1810.11000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [30]

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

    arXiv

  25. [31]

    Z.-C. Chen, C. Yuan, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 25 (2020), arXiv:1910.12239 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Z. Ren, T. Zhao, Z. Cao, Z.-K. Guo, W.-B. Han, H.- B. Jin, and Y.-L. Wu, Front. Phys. (Beijing)18, 64302 (2023), arXiv:2301.02967 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Dandoy, V

    V. Dandoy, V. Domcke, and F. Rompineve, SciPost Phys. Core6, 060 (2023), arXiv:2302.07901 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev

    E. Baguiet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel.28, 1 (2025), arXiv:2310.19857 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [35]

    ¨Ozsoy and G

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

    2023 arXiv

  30. [36]

    A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, A. Riotto, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP 10, 050, arXiv:2406.20089 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  31. [37]

    Luoet al., (2025), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    J. Luoet al., (2025), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [38]

    Iovino, Junior., G

    A. Iovino, Junior., G. Perna, and H. Veerm¨ ae, (2025), arXiv:2512.13648 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  33. [39]

    R.-G. Cai, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D102, 083528 (2020), arXiv:1909.13728 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Dom` enech, S

    G. Dom` enech, S. Pi, and M. Sasaki, JCAP08, 017, arXiv:2005.12314 [gr-qc]

    2005 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Dom` enech, C

    G. Dom` enech, C. Lin, and M. Sasaki, JCAP04, 062, [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2021)], arXiv:2012.08151 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [42]

    Liu, Z.-C

    L. Liu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP11, 071, arXiv:2307.14911 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  37. [43]

    Hwang, D

    J.-C. Hwang, D. Jeong, and H. Noh, Astrophys. J.842, 46 (2017), arXiv:1704.03500 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  39. [45]

    Tomikawa and T

    K. Tomikawa and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D101, 083529 (2020), arXiv:1910.01880 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Gong, Astrophys

    J.-O. Gong, Astrophys. J.925, 102 (2022), arXiv:1909.12708 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [47]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, JCAP03, 014, arXiv:1911.09689 [gr-qc]

    1911 arXiv

  42. [48]

    Inomata and T

    K. Inomata and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D101, 023523 (2020), arXiv:1912.00785 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 6 (2020), arXiv:1912.00885 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [50]

    Chang, S

    Z. Chang, S. Wang, and Q.-H. Zhu, (2020), arXiv:2009.11994 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Dom` enech and M

    G. Dom` enech and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D103, 063531 (2021), arXiv:2012.14016 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [52]

    A. Ota, H. J. Macpherson, and W. R. Coulton, Phys. Rev. D106, 063521 (2022), arXiv:2111.09163 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. D111, 103528 (2025), arXiv:2410.18996 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Dom` enech and J

    G. Dom` enech and J. Chluba, JCAP07, 034, arXiv:2503.13670 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  49. [55]

    C. Yuan, Y. Lu, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, JCAP07, 016, arXiv:2501.13691 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  50. [56]

    R. F. Marzke and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation and rela- tivity , 40 (1964)

    1964

  51. [57]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel.20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [58]

    F. B. Estabrook and H. D. Wahlquist, Gen. Rel. Grav. 6, 439 (1975)

    1975

  53. [59]

    J. W. Armstrong, Living Rev. Rel.9, 1 (2006)

    2006

  54. [60]

    Zwick, D

    L. Zwick, D. Soyuer, D. J. D’Orazio, D. O’Neill, A. Derdzinski, P. Saha, D. Blas, A. C. Jenkins, and L. Z. Kelley, Phys. Rev. D112, 083029 (2025), arXiv:2406.02306 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [61]

    D. R. Brill, inMethods of Local and Global Differential Geometry in General Relativity, edited by D. Farnsworth, J. Fink, J. Porter, and A. Thompson (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1972) pp. 45–47

    1972

  56. [64]

    Kodama and M

    H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 78, 1 (1984)

    1984

  57. [65]

    V. F. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R. H. Branden- berger, Phys. Rept.215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  58. [66]

    K. A. Malik and D. Wands, Phys. Rept.475, 1 (2009), arXiv:0809.4944 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Bonvin and R

    C. Bonvin and R. Durrer, Phys. Rev. D84, 063505 (2011), arXiv:1105.5280 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Durrer, Fund

    R. Durrer, Fund. Cosmic Phys.15, 209 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9311041

    1994 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Di Dio and R

    E. Di Dio and R. Durrer, Phys. Rev. D86, 023510 (2012), arXiv:1205.3366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Gasperini, G

    M. Gasperini, G. Marozzi, F. Nugier, and G. Veneziano, JCAP07, 008, arXiv:1104.1167 [astro-ph.CO]. 7

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Ben-Dayan, G

    I. Ben-Dayan, G. Marozzi, F. Nugier, and G. Veneziano, JCAP11, 045, arXiv:1209.4326 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Bertacca, R

    D. Bertacca, R. Maartens, and C. Clarkson, JCAP11, 013, arXiv:1406.0319 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Marozzi, Class

    G. Marozzi, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 045004 (2015), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 32, 179501 (2015)], arXiv:1406.1135 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Yoo and R

    J. Yoo and R. Durrer, JCAP09, 016, arXiv:1705.05839 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. L. Fuentes, J. C. Hidalgo, and K. A. Malik, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 065014 (2021), arXiv:1908.08400 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Magi and J

    M. Magi and J. Yoo, JCAP09, 071, arXiv:2204.01751 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    B´ echaz, G

    P. B´ echaz, G. Fanizza, G. Marozzi, and M. R. M. Silva, (2025), arXiv:2510.25690 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  70. [78]

    J. D. Romano and B. Allen, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 175008 (2024), arXiv:2308.05847 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    R. w. Hellings and G. s. Downs, Astrophys. J. Lett.265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  72. [80]

    Mollerach, D

    S. Mollerach, D. Harari, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063002 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310711

    2004 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Assadullahi and D

    H. Assadullahi and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D79, 083511 (2009), arXiv:0901.0989 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Papanikolaou, V

    T. Papanikolaou, V. Vennin, and D. Langlois, JCAP03, 053, arXiv:2010.11573 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Sipp and B

    M. Sipp and B. M. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D107, 063538 (2023), arXiv:2212.01190 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri, T. Nakama, and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D100, 043532 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 049901 (2023)], arXiv:1904.12879 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri, T. Nakama, and T. Terada, JCAP10, 071, [Erratum: JCAP 08, E01 (2023)], arXiv:1904.12878 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Naruko, C

    A. Naruko, C. Pitrou, K. Koyama, and M. Sasaki, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 165008 (2013), arXiv:1304.6929 [astro- ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Saito, A

    R. Saito, A. Naruko, T. Hiramatsu, and M. Sasaki, JCAP 10, 051, arXiv:1409.2464 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  80. [88]

    Namikawa, A

    T. Namikawa, A. Naruko, R. Saito, A. Taruya, and D. Yamauchi, JCAP10, 029, arXiv:2103.10639 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Gurian, D

    J. Gurian, D. Jeong, J.-c. Hwang, and H. Noh, Phys. Rev. D104, 083534 (2021), arXiv:2104.03330 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Cai, X.-Y

    R.-G. Cai, X.-Y. Yang, and L. Zhao, Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 89 (2022), arXiv:2109.06864 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Favata, Class

    M. Favata, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 084036 (2010), arXiv:1003.3486 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  84. [92]

    A. I. Harte, T. B. Mieling, M. A. Oancea, and E. Steininger, Phys. Rev. D111, 024034 (2025), arXiv:2407.00174 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Chang, X

    Z. Chang, X. Zhang, and J.-Z. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D107, 063510 (2023), arXiv:2209.07693 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Yu and S

    Y.-H. Yu and S. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 555 (2024), arXiv:2303.03897 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    P. Bari, N. Bartolo, G. Dom` enech, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D109, 023509 (2024), arXiv:2307.05404 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Picard and K

    R. Picard and K. A. Malik, JCAP10, 010, arXiv:2311.14513 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    Picard, L

    R. Picard, L. E. Padilla, K. A. Malik, and D. J. Mulryne, (2025), arXiv:2509.07811 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    R. A. Isaacson, Phys. Rev.166, 1272 (1968)

    1968

  91. [99]

    Multipole

    R.-G. Cai, X.-Y. Yang, and L. Zhao, (2021), arXiv:2109.06865 [astro-ph.CO]. 1 END MA TTER Here we provide, for the interested reader, some of the derivation details skipped in the main text. Boundary conditions.— The expansion of the boundary condition, that is xµ r X l=0 τ (l...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.