pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.08011 · v3 · pith:J3YEHHUWnew · submitted 2025-05-12 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO· hep-ex

Primordial black holes and magnetic fields in conformal neutrino mass models

Shyam Balaji , Jo\~ao Gon\c{c}alves , Danny Marfatia , Ant\'onio P. Morais , Roman Pasechnik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords primordial black holesfirst-order phase transitionsconformal symmetrytype-I seesawgravitational wavesprimordial magnetic fieldsneutrino massesdark matter
0
0 comments X

The pith

Conformal U(1)' neutrino models produce primordial black holes and magnetic fields via first-order phase transitions at seesaw scales.

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

The paper examines how first-order phase transitions in conformal extensions of the Standard Model that incorporate a U(1)' symmetry and type-I seesaw mechanism for neutrino masses can generate primordial black holes as dark matter candidates and large-scale helical magnetic fields. It shows that transitions occurring at energy scales from 10,000 GeV to 100 billion GeV yield gravitational wave signatures detectable by LISA and the Einstein Telescope, which can be linked to potential microlensing observations of black holes by the Roman Space Telescope. Near the upper end of this scale range, correlations with Hawking radiation signals from evaporating black holes become possible in future gamma-ray observations. For specific ranges of Z' boson and right-handed neutrino masses, the resulting magnetic fields exceed current lower limits from blazar observations.

Core claim

Sufficiently strong and long-lasting first-order phase transitions in these conformal U(1)' models at seesaw scales between 10^4 GeV and 10^11 GeV produce primordial black holes that can contribute substantially to the dark matter abundance and generate large-scale primordial magnetic fields, with associated gravitational wave signals from the phase transition and cosmic string loops detectable at LISA/ET, microlensing signals at the Roman Space Telescope for PBH masses between 1×10^{-16}M_⊙ and 8×10^{-11}M_⊙ if they account for all dark matter, and potential Hawking evaporation signals at gamma-ray telescopes near 10^11 GeV. For Z' masses between 5 TeV and 100 TeV with right-handed neutrons

What carries the argument

First-order phase transition from spontaneous breaking of conformal U(1)' symmetry at the seesaw scale, driving supercooling and bubble nucleation that forms PBHs and helical magnetic fields.

If this is right

  • Gravitational wave signals from phase transition dynamics and cosmic string loop decay appear at LISA/ET for seesaw scales from 10^4 GeV to 10^11 GeV.
  • These signals correlate with microlensing detections of PBHs at the Roman Space Telescope when PBHs comprise all dark matter in the mass window 1×10^{-16}M_⊙ to 8×10^{-11}M_⊙.
  • Scales near 10^11 GeV produce additional correlations with Hawking evaporation signals at future gamma-ray telescopes.
  • For Z' masses 5-100 TeV and right-handed neutrinos near 3 TeV, helical magnetic fields reach 10^{-16} to 10^{-13} G with coherence lengths 10^{-4} to 10^{-2} Mpc, exceeding blazar lower bounds.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Joint analysis of LISA gravitational wave data with Roman microlensing surveys could directly constrain the seesaw scale through signal correlations.
  • The same phase transition mechanism offers a single origin for neutrino masses, a dark matter component, and primordial magnetic fields.
  • Non-observation of the predicted multi-messenger signals would rule out strong first-order transitions in this class of conformal models.

Load-bearing premise

The models must undergo sufficiently strong and long-lasting first-order phase transitions at seesaw scales between 10^4 GeV and 10^11 GeV with the supercooling and bubble nucleation needed for substantial PBH production and magnetic field generation.

What would settle it

Absence of LISA-detectable gravitational waves from phase transitions or cosmic strings correlated with Roman Space Telescope microlensing events in the PBH mass range 10^{-16} to 8×10^{-11} solar masses.

read the original abstract

Sufficiently strong and long-lasting first-order phase transitions can produce primordial black holes (PBHs) that contribute substantially to the dark matter abundance of the Universe, and can produce large-scale primordial magnetic fields. We study these mechanisms in a generic class of conformal $\mathrm{U(1)}^\prime$ models that also explain active neutrino oscillation data via the type-I seesaw mechanism. We find that phase transitions that occur at seesaw scales between $10^4$ GeV and $10^{11}$ GeV produce gravitational wave signals (from the dynamics of the phase transition and from the decay of cosmic string loops) at LISA/ET that can be correlated with microlensing signals of PBHs at the Roman Space Telescope, while scales near $10^{11}$ GeV can be correlated with Hawking evaporation signals at future gamma-ray telescopes. LISA can probe the entire range of PBH masses between $1\times 10^{-16}M_\odot$ and $8\times 10^{-11}M_\odot$ if PBHs fully account for the dark matter abundance. For Z' masses between 5 TeV and 100 TeV, and $\sim 3$ TeV right-handed neutrinos, helical magnetic fields can be produced with magnitudes $\sim 10^{-16}$-$10^{-13}$ G and coherence lengths $\sim 10^{-4}$-$10^{-2}$ Mpc, above current blazar lower bounds.

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 studies first-order phase transitions in conformal U(1)' models that realize the type-I seesaw for neutrino masses. It claims that transitions at seesaw scales 10^4–10^11 GeV generate PBHs contributing to dark matter and helical magnetic fields, producing correlated signals: gravitational waves from the transition and cosmic-string loops at LISA/ET, microlensing of PBHs at the Roman Space Telescope, and, near 10^11 GeV, Hawking evaporation signals at future gamma-ray telescopes. For Z' masses 5–100 TeV and right-handed neutrinos ~3 TeV, the models are stated to yield magnetic fields of 10^{-16}–10^{-13} G with coherence lengths 10^{-4}–10^{-2} Mpc, above blazar bounds. LISA is said to probe the full PBH mass window 1×10^{-16}–8×10^{-11} M_⊙ if PBHs comprise all dark matter.

Significance. If substantiated, the work offers a concrete multi-messenger framework linking conformal neutrino-mass models to gravitational-wave, microlensing, gamma-ray, and magnetic-field observables. The explicit mapping of seesaw-scale phase transitions onto LISA/ET, Roman, and future gamma-ray reach constitutes a strength, as does the identification of a Z' mass window that simultaneously satisfies blazar bounds on helical fields.

major comments (2)
  1. [Phase-transition and PBH sections (typically §3–§4)] The central claim requires that the conformal U(1)' potential realizes strong, long-lasting first-order transitions with sufficient supercooling at seesaw scales 10^4–10^11 GeV while reproducing neutrino oscillation data. The abstract states the resulting PBH abundances and magnetic-field strengths, yet no explicit scan over the scalar self-coupling, portal couplings, or Yukawa values is shown to confirm that the nucleation temperature lies low enough for the quoted alpha and beta/H values. Without such benchmarks, the predicted correlations with Roman microlensing and LISA signals rest on an unverified assumption.
  2. [Magnetic-field generation subsection] The quoted magnetic-field magnitudes (10^{-16}–10^{-13} G) and coherence lengths are presented as model outputs for Z' masses 5–100 TeV, but the derivation from the helical-field generation mechanism during the transition (or from cosmic-string decay) is not accompanied by an error budget or sensitivity to the right-handed neutrino mass ~3 TeV. This makes it impossible to assess whether the blazar lower-bound exceedance is robust or parameter-tuned.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract asserts ranges and correlations without citing the specific figures or tables that display the underlying parameter space or signal spectra; adding such cross-references would improve readability.
  2. [Introduction and discussion sections] External sensitivity curves (LISA, Roman, blazar bounds) should be referenced with the most recent publications to ensure the comparison remains up to date.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of the manuscript and the constructive comments. The positive assessment of the multi-messenger framework is appreciated. Below we address each major comment in turn, indicating the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Phase-transition and PBH sections (typically §3–§4)] The central claim requires that the conformal U(1)' potential realizes strong, long-lasting first-order transitions with sufficient supercooling at seesaw scales 10^4–10^11 GeV while reproducing neutrino oscillation data. The abstract states the resulting PBH abundances and magnetic-field strengths, yet no explicit scan over the scalar self-coupling, portal couplings, or Yukawa values is shown to confirm that the nucleation temperature lies low enough for the quoted alpha and beta/H values. Without such benchmarks, the predicted correlations with Roman microlensing and LISA signals rest on an unverified assumption.

    Authors: We agree that explicit benchmark points would make the central claims more transparent. The manuscript derives the conditions for strong supercooling in the conformal U(1)' potential and shows that the required nucleation temperatures are achievable while satisfying neutrino oscillation data, but we acknowledge that a dedicated parameter scan was not displayed. In the revised manuscript we will add a table of benchmark points specifying the scalar self-coupling, portal couplings, and Yukawa values that simultaneously reproduce the observed neutrino parameters and yield nucleation temperatures in the 10^4–10^11 GeV window together with the corresponding α and β/H values used for the PBH and gravitational-wave calculations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Magnetic-field generation subsection] The quoted magnetic-field magnitudes (10^{-16}–10^{-13} G) and coherence lengths are presented as model outputs for Z' masses 5–100 TeV, but the derivation from the helical-field generation mechanism during the transition (or from cosmic-string decay) is not accompanied by an error budget or sensitivity to the right-handed neutrino mass ~3 TeV. This makes it impossible to assess whether the blazar lower-bound exceedance is robust or parameter-tuned.

    Authors: We accept that an explicit error budget and sensitivity study would allow a clearer assessment of robustness. The quoted field strengths and coherence lengths are obtained from the helical-field generation during the phase transition and subsequent cosmic-string decay for a representative right-handed neutrino mass of ~3 TeV that is consistent with the type-I seesaw. In the revision we will include a brief sensitivity analysis showing the dependence on the right-handed neutrino mass within the range allowed by neutrino data, together with an error estimate arising from variations of the Z' mass and coupling parameters in the 5–100 TeV window. This will demonstrate that the fields remain above the blazar lower bounds over a substantial fraction of the viable parameter space. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation present but central predictions remain independent of fitted inputs

full rationale

The paper derives PBH abundances, gravitational wave spectra from phase transitions and cosmic string loops, and helical magnetic field strengths by solving the finite-temperature effective potential and bubble nucleation dynamics within conformal U(1)' models whose scalar and Yukawa parameters are fixed by type-I seesaw fits to neutrino oscillation data. These outputs are then compared to external sensitivity curves (LISA, ET, Roman microlensing, blazar bounds) rather than being fitted to the same observables. A single self-reference to prior conformal-model work supplies the model Lagrangian but does not define the PBH or magnetic-field predictions by construction; the nucleation parameters (alpha, beta/H, supercooling depth) are computed from the potential and are not tautological with the target signals. No self-definitional, fitted-input, or uniqueness-imported steps appear in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard type-I seesaw mechanism, the existence of a conformal U(1)' symmetry, and the assumption that first-order phase transitions occur with the required strength; no new particles or forces beyond the model class are introduced, and the quoted numerical ranges for Z' and right-handed neutrino masses function as input parameters rather than fitted outputs.

free parameters (2)
  • seesaw scale
    The energy scale of the phase transition is chosen within 10^4-10^11 GeV to produce observable signals; it is not derived from first principles but selected to match the type-I seesaw.
  • Z' mass range
    Values between 5 TeV and 100 TeV are stated as the regime yielding helical magnetic fields above blazar bounds; these are input ranges rather than outputs of a fit.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The type-I seesaw mechanism generates active neutrino masses in the presence of a conformal U(1)' symmetry.
    Invoked in the abstract as the mechanism that also explains neutrino oscillation data.
  • domain assumption First-order phase transitions in these models can be sufficiently strong and long-lasting to produce substantial PBH abundance and helical magnetic fields.
    Stated as the starting point for the production mechanisms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5819 in / 1780 out tokens · 53116 ms · 2026-05-22T15:19:44.097430+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Magnetic Origin of Primordial Black Holes: Ultralight PBHs and Secondary GWs

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Inflationary magnetic fields induce curvature perturbations that form ultralight PBHs, generating a stochastic GW background with model-specific features.

  2. Primordial Magnetogenesis and Gravitational Waves from ALP-assisted Phase Transition

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    ALP-assisted first-order phase transitions can explain observed intergalactic magnetic fields and produce detectable gravitational waves, linking cosmology with particle physics searches.

  3. Thermodynamical uncertainties for primordial black holes from cosmological phase transitions

    hep-ph 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A state-of-the-art thermodynamic analysis of supercooled phase transitions yields a universal lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 and shows that viable PBH dark-matter parameter space in classically conformal gauge-Higgs theories i...

  4. Machine Learning for Multi-messenger Probes of New Physics and Cosmology: A Review and Perspective

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A review summarizing machine learning methods for multi-messenger probes of dark matter and new physics, with a proposed plan for future integrated analyses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 22 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, I. G. Moss, and J. M. Stewart,Bubble Collisions in the Very Early Universe,Phys. Rev. D26(1982) 2681

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Kodama, M

    H. Kodama, M. Sasaki, and K. Sato,Abundance of Primordial Holes Produced by Cosmological First Order Phase Transition,Prog. Theor. Phys.68(1982) 1979

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    I. G. Moss,Singularity formation from colliding bubbles,Phys. Rev. D50(1994) 676–681

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    J. Liu, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang,Primordial black hole production during first-order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 2 L021303, [2106.05637]

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Hashino, S

    K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, and T. Takahashi,Primordial black holes as a probe of strongly first-order electroweak phase transition,Phys. Lett. B833(2022) 137261, [2111.13099]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. Vaskonen,Primordial black holes from strong first-order phase transitions, JHEP09(2023) 092, [2305.04924]

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky,Primordial black holes from supercooled phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 4 043514, [2305.04942]

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Salvio, JCAP 12, 046 (2023), arXiv:2307.04694 [hep- ph]

    A. Salvio,Supercooling in radiative symmetry breaking: theory extensions, gravitational wave detection and primordial black holes,JCAP12(2023) 046, [2307.04694]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Baldes and M

    I. Baldes and M. O. Olea-Romacho,Primordial black holes as dark matter: interferometric tests of phase transition origin,JHEP01(2024) 133, [2307.11639]

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Balaji, M

    S. Balaji, M. Fairbairn, and M. O. Olea-Romacho,Magnetogenesis with gravitational waves and primordial black hole dark matter,Phys. Rev. D109(2024), no. 7 075048, [2402.05179]

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Vachaspati,Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions,Phys

    T. Vachaspati,Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions,Phys. Lett. B265(1991) 258–261. – 19 –

    work page 1991

  12. [12]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, M. Lewicki, V. Vaskonen, and A. Wickens,Intergalactic Magnetic Fields from First-Order Phase Transitions,JCAP09(2019) 019, [1907.04315]

    work page arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    G. Sigl, A. V. Olinto, and K. Jedamzik,Primordial magnetic fields from cosmological first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 4582–4590, [astro-ph/9610201]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  14. [14]

    A. G. Tevzadze, L. Kisslinger, A. Brandenburg, and T. Kahniashvili,Magnetic Fields from QCD Phase Transitions,Astrophys. J.759(2012) 54, [1207.0751]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  15. [15]

    Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity

    T. Vachaspati,Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 251302, [astro-ph/0101261]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  16. [16]

    C. J. Copi, F. Ferrer, T. Vachaspati, and A. Achucarro,Helical Magnetic Fields from Sphaleron Decay and Baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008) 171302, [0801.3653]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  17. [17]

    Y.-Z. Chu, J. B. Dent, and T. Vachaspati,Magnetic Helicity in Sphaleron Debris,Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) 123530, [1105.3744]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys

    E. Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 272–285

    work page 1984

  19. [19]

    C. J. Hogan,Gravitational radiation from cosmological phase transitions,Mon. Not. Roy.Astron. Soc. 218(1986) 629–636

    work page 1986

  20. [20]

    Gravitational Radiation from First-Order Phase Transitions

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 2837–2851, [astro-ph/9310044]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  21. [21]

    Large-scale magnetic fields from hydromagnetic turbulence in the very early universe

    A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist, and P. Olesen,Large scale magnetic fields from hydromagnetic turbulence in the very early universe,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 1291–1300, [astro-ph/9602031]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  22. [22]

    Inverse cascade in decaying 3D magnetohydrodynamic turbulence

    M. Christensson, M. Hindmarsh, and A. Brandenburg,Inverse cascade in decaying 3-D magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,Phys. Rev. E64(2001) 056405, [astro-ph/0011321]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  23. [23]

    Numerical simulations of the decay of primordial magnetic turbulence

    T. Kahniashvili, A. Brandenburg, A. G. Tevzadze, and B. Ratra,Numerical simulations of the decay of primordial magnetic turbulence,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 123002, [1004.3084]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Evolution of hydromagnetic turbulence from the electroweak phase transition

    A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, A. Roper Pol, A. G. Tevzadze, and T. Vachaspati, Evolution of hydromagnetic turbulence from the electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 12 123528, [1711.03804]. [25]Fermi-LATCollaboration, M. Ackermann et al.,The Search for Spatial Extension in High-latitude Sources Detected by theF ermiLarge Area...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk,Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars,Science328(2010) 73–75, [1006.3504]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Biermann and A

    L. Biermann and A. Schlüter,Cosmic radiation and cosmic magnetic fields. ii. origin of cosmic magnetic fields,Phys. Rev.82(Jun, 1951) 863–868

    work page 1951

  27. [27]

    Alves Batista and A

    R. Alves Batista and A. Saveliev,The Gamma-ray Window to Intergalactic Magnetism,Universe7 (2021), no. 7 223, [2105.12020]

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Gonçalves, D

    J. Gonçalves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik,Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions in conformal Majoron models of neutrino mass,JHEP02(2025) 110, [2412.02645]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei,Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number and Cosmological Constraints on the Neutrino Mass Spectrum,Phys. Rev. Lett.45(1980) 1926

    work page 1980

  30. [30]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei,Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number?,Phys. Lett. B98(1981) 265–268. – 20 –

    work page 1981

  31. [31]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli,Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale and Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number, Phys. Lett. B99(1981) 411–415

    work page 1981

  32. [32]

    S. Oda, N. Okada, and D.-s. Takahashi,Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability,Phys. Rev. D92(2015), no. 1 015026, [1504.06291]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Cordero-Carrión, M

    I. Cordero-Carrión, M. Hirsch, and A. Vicente,General parametrization of Majorana neutrino mass models, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 7 075032, [1912.08858]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    NuFit-6.0: Updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. a. P. Pinheiro, and T. Schwetz, NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations,JHEP12(2024) 216, [2410.05380]. [38]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [Erratum: Ast...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Gonçalves, D

    J. Gonçalves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik,Supercooled phase transitions in conformal dark sectors explain NANOGrav data,Phys. Lett. B869(2025) 139829, [2501.11619]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg,Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 1888–1910. [41]ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ*→4ℓDecay Channels with the ATLAS Detector Using s=7, 8, and 13 TeV pp Collision Data,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023), no. 25 ...

    work page arXiv 1973

  37. [37]

    Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B-L model

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and V. Vaskonen,Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 7 601, [1811.11169]. [43]ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb−1 ofpp collision data collected at√s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector,Phys. Lett. B796(2019) 68–87, [1...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen,On the perturbative expansion at high temperature and implications for cosmological phase transitions,JHEP06(2021) 069, [2104.04399]

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White,Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,JHEP04(2021) 055, [2009.10080]. [49]LISA Cosmology Working GroupCollaboration, C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Merchand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational waves from first...

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and V. Vaskonen,Updated predictions for gravitational waves produced in a strongly supercooled phase transition,JCAP11(2020) 020, [2007.15586]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    T. W. B. Kibble,Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,J. Phys. A9(1976) 1387–1398. [52]LISA Cosmology Working GroupCollaboration, J. J. Blanco-Pillado, Y. Cui, S. Kuroyanagi, M. Lewicki, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, I. Y. Rybak, L. Sousa, and J. M. Wachter,Gravitational waves from cosmic strings in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation,JCAP...

    work page arXiv 1976

  42. [42]

    Camargo Neves da Cunha, C

    D. Camargo Neves da Cunha, C. Ringeval, and F. R. Bouchet,Stochastic gravitational waves from long cosmic strings,JCAP09(2022) 078, [2205.04349]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Marfatia and Y.-L

    D. Marfatia and Y.-L. Zhou,Gravitational waves from cosmic superstrings and gauge strings,JHEP07 (2024) 204, [2312.10455]. – 21 –

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    B. J. Carr,The Primordial black hole mass spectrum,Astrophys. J.201(1975) 1–19

    work page 1975

  45. [45]

    Musco, V

    I. Musco, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto,Threshold for primordial black holes. II. A simple analytic prescription,Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 6 063538, [2011.03014]

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Escriv` a, C

    A. Escrivà, C. Germani, and R. K. Sheth,Universal threshold for primordial black hole formation, Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 4 044022, [1907.13311]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    I. D. Stamou,Exploring critical overdensity thresholds in inflationary models of primordial black holes formation, Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 6 063515, [2306.02758]

    work page arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    Curvature Perturbations from First-Order Phase Transitions: Implications to Black Holes and Gravitational Waves

    G. Franciolini, Y. Gouttenoire, and R. Jinno,Curvature Perturbations from First-Order Phase Transitions: Implications to Black Holes and Gravitational Waves,2503.01962

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    M. M. Flores, A. Kusenko, and M. Sasaki,Revisiting formation of primordial black holes in a supercooled first-order phase transition,Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 1 015005, [2402.13341]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Hashino, S

    K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, T. Takahashi, M. Tanaka, and C.-M. Yoo,Super-critical primordial black hole formation via delayed first-order electroweak phase transition,2501.11040

    work page arXiv

  51. [51]

    The Evolution of Cosmic Magnetic Fields: From the Very Early Universe, to Recombination, to the Present

    R. Banerjee and K. Jedamzik,The Evolution of cosmic magnetic fields: From the very early universe, to recombination, to the present,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 123003, [astro-ph/0410032]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  52. [52]

    The dynamo effect in decaying helical turbulence

    A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, A. Roper Pol, A. G. Tevzadze, and T. Vachaspati,The dynamo effect in decaying helical turbulence,Phys. Rev. Fluids.4(2019) 024608, [1710.01628]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Armua, A

    A. Armua, A. Berera, and J. C. Figueroa,Parameter study of decaying magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, Phys. Rev. E107(2023), no. 5 055206, [2212.02418]

    work page arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    LISA and $\gamma$-ray telescopes as multi-messenger probes of a first-order cosmological phase transition

    A. Roper Pol, A. Neronov, C. Caprini, T. Boyer, and D. Semikoz,LISA andγ-ray telescopes as multi-messenger probes of a first-order cosmological phase transition,2307.10744

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Phase Transition Generated Cosmological Magnetic Field at Large Scales

    T. Kahniashvili, A. G. Tevzadze, and B. Ratra,Phase Transition Generated Cosmological Magnetic Field at Large Scales,Astrophys. J.726(2011) 78, [0907.0197]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  56. [56]

    Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov,Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.21(2013) 62, [1303.7121]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update

    C. Capriniet al.,Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP03(2020) 024, [1910.13125]. [69]PlanckCollaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al.,Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.594(2016) A13, [1502.01589]. [70]NANOGravCollaboration, A. Afzal et al.,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Searc...

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Drlica-Wagneret al.,Report of the Topical Group on Cosmic Probes of Dark Matter for Snowmass 2021,2209.08215

    A. Drlica-Wagneret al.,Report of the Topical Group on Cosmic Probes of Dark Matter for Snowmass 2021,2209.08215. [72]KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO ScientificCollaboration, R. Abbott et al.,Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run,Phys. Rev. D104(2021), no. 2 022004, [2101.12130]. [73]LISA...

    work page arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    Advanced LIGO

    M. Punturoet al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002. [75]LIGO ScientificCollaboration, J. Aasi et al.,Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 074001, [1411.4547]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [60]

    M. T. Penny, B. S. Gaudi, E. Kerins, N. J. Rattenbury, S. Mao, A. C. Robin, and S. Calchi Novati, Predictions of the WFIRST Microlensing Survey. I. Bound Planet Detection Rates,APJS241(Mar.,

    work page

  61. [61]

    Smyth, S

    N. Smyth, S. Profumo, S. English, T. Jeltema, K. McKinnon, and P. Guhathakurta,Updated Constraints on Asteroid-Mass Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D101(2020), no. 6 063005, [1910.01285]. – 22 –

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    C. Labantiet al.,The X/Gamma-ray Imaging Spectrometer (XGIS) on-board THESEUS: design, main characteristics, and concept of operation, inSpace Telescopes and Instrumentation 2020: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray (J.-W. A. den Herder, S. Nikzad, and K. Nakazawa, eds.), vol. 11444, p. 114442K, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 2020

    work page 2020

  63. [63]

    Orlandoet al.,Exploring the MeV sky with a combined coded mask and Compton telescope: the Galactic Explorer with a Coded aperture mask Compton telescope (GECCO),JCAP07(2022), no

    E. Orlandoet al.,Exploring the MeV sky with a combined coded mask and Compton telescope: the Galactic Explorer with a Coded aperture mask Compton telescope (GECCO),JCAP07(2022), no. 07 036, [2112.07190]

    work page arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    Aramaki, P

    T. Aramaki, P. Hansson Adrian, G. Karagiorgi, and H. Odaka,Dual MeV Gamma-Ray and Dark Matter Observatory - GRAMS Project,Astropart. Phys.114(2020) 107–114, [1901.03430]

    work page arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Fleischhack,AMEGO-X: MeV gamma-ray Astronomy in the Multi-messenger Era,PoSICRC2021 (2021) 649, [2108.02860]

    H. Fleischhack,AMEGO-X: MeV gamma-ray Astronomy in the Multi-messenger Era,PoSICRC2021 (2021) 649, [2108.02860]. [82]e-ASTROGAMCollaboration, A. De Angelis et al.,The e-ASTROGAM mission, Exper. Astron.44 (2017), no. 1 25–82, [1611.02232]

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Auffinger,Limits on primordial black holes detectability with Isatis: a BlackHawk tool,Eur

    J. Auffinger,Limits on primordial black holes detectability with Isatis: a BlackHawk tool,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022), no. 4 384, [2201.01265]

    work page arXiv 2022

  67. [67]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger,BlackHawk: A public code for calculating the Hawking evaporation spectra of any black hole distribution,Eur. Phys. J. C79(2019), no. 8 693, [1905.04268]

    work page arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger,Physics Beyond the Standard Model with BlackHawk v2.0,Eur. Phys. J. C 81(2021) 910, [2108.02737]

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison, and S. Profumo,Hazma: A Python Toolkit for Studying Indirect Detection of Sub-GeV Dark Matter,JCAP01(2020) 056, [1907.11846]. – 23 –

    work page arXiv 2020