The power of SKA to Constrain cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds below the astrophysical foreground noise

Chengjie Fu; Jing Liu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The power of SKA to Constrain cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds below the astrophysical foreground noise

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that requiring dark-matter subhalo abundance not to exceed the total dark matter constrains nHz/µHz cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds to lie orders of magnitude below the astrophysical foreground.

desk verdict A genuinely new indirect bound on cosmological SGWBs, but the central FOPT constraint depends on an unreproduced self-cited relation and the SKA framing outruns the calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14366 v1 pith:SPD5YM6D submitted 2025-06-17 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

Chengjie Fu , Jing Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

keywords gravitational-wavebackgroundcompactsubhalospulsartimingarraysSquareKilometreArrayfirst-orderphasetransitionsdomainwallsscalarcondensatefragmentationdarkmattersubstructure

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

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 proposes a new observational route to cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds in the nanohertz-to-microhertz band, where direct detection is blocked by an irreducible foreground from supermassive black hole binaries. The route is indirect: the same violent processes that emit gravitational waves—first-order phase transitions, domain walls, and scalar condensate fragmentation—also seed density perturbations that collapse into compact dark-matter subhalos. Requiring the subhalo abundance $F$ not to exceed 1, a level the upcoming Square Kilometre Array can plausibly test, turns into upper limits on the gravitational-wave energy density $\Omega_\mathrm{GW}$ that lie several orders of magnitude below the astrophysical foreground. If the method holds, cosmological backgrounds in this band are effectively hidden from gravitational-wave detectors, while SKA's subhalo observations become the tightest indirect constraints on the underlying new physics.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the compact-subhalo abundance integral. The density perturbation at horizon entry, characterized by the smoothed variance $\sigma_H$, is fed through a Gaussian threshold integral with threshold $\delta_{\mathrm{min}}$ to give the fraction $F$ of dark matter locked in subhalos, using the Moore profile (a cusped halo density profile) and its mass–radius relation from numerical simulations. Each gravitational-wave source supplies its own $\sigma_H$: $\sigma_H \propto \alpha_*$ for first-order phase transitions, $\sigma_H \simeq 2A\sigma/(3M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2 H_{\mathrm{ann}})$ with $A \simeq 0.8$ for domain walls, and a causality-limited $\delta_H \sim \Omega_{\nabla}(k_{\mathrm{res}}/(aH_*))^{-3/2}$ for scalar condensate fragmentation. Setting $F=1$ inverts the chain and converts a subhalo-abundance constraint into an upper bound on $\Omega_\mathrm{GW}$; the last-collapse redshift $z_c$ is fixed to 500 as a moderate choice, and the SKA sensitivity enters through its ability to probe order-unity subhalo abundances via pulsar timing.

What would settle it

A dedicated numerical simulation that recomputes the horizon-entry density contrast $\sigma_H$ for first-order phase transitions at moderate $\beta/H_*$ and $\alpha_*$ would settle the numerical link; if $\sigma_H$ came out several times smaller than the adopted $\sigma_H \propto \alpha_*$ scaling, the derived $\Omega_\mathrm{GW}$ upper limits would shift upward by a corresponding factor and could approach the astrophysical foreground. Alternatively, a future SKA measurement that places a strong upper limit on compact-subhalo abundance well below $F=1$ would confirm the calibration of the method and tighten the bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that requiring the abundance $F$ of compact dark-matter subhalos not to exceed unity places upper limits on the present-day gravitational-wave energy density $\Omega_\mathrm{GW}$ of cosmological sources in the nanohertz-to-microhertz band, and that these limits fall orders of magnitude below the astrophysical foreground from supermassive black hole binaries. The limits are derived for bubble collisions and sound waves from first-order phase transitions, for domain walls, and for scalar condensate fragmentation, using the relation between each source's horizon-entry density contrast $\sigma_H$ and its gravitational-wave spectrum. For domain walls the limits are typically four to six orders of magnitude tighter than the foreground; for condensate fragmentation the peak $\Omega_\mathrm{GW} \approx 10^{-12}$ sits about four orders below it; for first-order phase transitions the limits are several orders tighter, with smaller $\beta/H_*$ giving stronger bounds. The analysis deliberately takes $F=1$ as a conservative normalization, so the stated bounds are upper limits rather than detections.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerical relation between gravitational-wave source parameters and the dark-matter density fluctuation that seeds subhalos, taken from external simulations, is correct, and that the manual choice of the last collapse redshift $z_c = 500$ is representative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds in the nHz/µHz band from first-order phase transitions, domain walls, and scalar condensate fragmentation are generically too weak to be seen above the supermassive-black-hole-binary foreground, so future nHz/µHz detectors will not resolve them as gravitational waves.
The Square Kilometre Array's ability to constrain compact-subhalo abundance at the order-one level becomes a competitive indirect probe of new-physics parameter spaces at MeV–GeV energy scales, where direct gravitational-wave searches are blinded by the foreground.
According to the paper's conclusion, the upper limits also reduce the uncertainty of the astrophysical component of the nHz/µHz background, yielding more concrete information about the formation and evolution of supermassive black hole binaries.
Because the bounds tighten for smaller values of the last-collapse redshift $z_c$, any future simulation or observation that pins down the subhalo formation epoch will sharpen the limits accordingly.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension of the same inversion is cosmic strings, which the paper lists as a candidate source but does not constrain numerically; applying the same $\sigma_H$-to-$F$ chain would likely push their background equally far below the foreground.
Since the limits depend monotonically on $z_c$, a future SKA measurement of subhalo abundance could be inverted to estimate the last collapse redshift, turning a calibration parameter into an observable.
If independent probes such as gamma-ray annihilation limits push the allowed subhalo fraction below $F=1$, the same framework would scale the $\Omega_\mathrm{GW}$ bounds downward, so the paper's limits are conservative rather than maximal.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a genuinely new application — using compact-subhalo abundance to cap Ω_GW from FOPTs, domain walls, and condensate fragmentation several orders below the SMBHB foreground. The physics is simple and the idea is sound: the same processes that emit GWs also induce density perturbations that collapse into dark matter subhalos, so demanding F ≤ 1 translates into an upper limit on the GW spectrum. I hadn't seen that done for these source classes, and the qualitative conclusion is plausible.

The weak spot is the FOPT section. The limit there is set by the mapping σ_H ∝ α_* with a numerical normalization borrowed from the authors' own Ref. [84]. That relation is not shown anywhere in this arXiv v1; the text says to see the supplemental material, and there is none attached. That matters because F in Eq. (3) is a Gaussian tail integral, so the derived upper limit on α_* — and hence on Ω_GW — is exponentially sensitive to the assumed normalization. A factor-of-2 change in σ_H can shift the bounds by orders of magnitude. This is not a minor point: it is the anchor of the headline claim. The domain-wall and condensate limits are better, since the σ_H expressions are explicit, but they too carry the manually selected z_c = 500 with no band, and no error bars anywhere.

The SKA framing also outruns the calculation. The present curves come from setting F = 1, a no-overproduction condition, not from any SKA measurement. SKA is a plausible future route to making the bound observational, but the actual numbers are theory, not detection. The abstract and title should say 'could be constrained with SKA' rather than implying SKA is doing the work. Minor sloppiness — a broken sentence in the introduction, a half-referenced scalar-induced case — doesn't change the picture but doesn't help.

Still, the intellectual content is honest and the method is worth a serious referee. The authors are upfront that the bounds depend on z_c and that F = 1 is a conservative choice. That is not a circular argument; it's a well-posed mapping from subhalo abundance to GW parameter space, with one nontrivial input that is currently uncheckable from the manuscript alone.

Recommendation: send to referees, but require (1) the actual σ_H–α_* relation in the text or a real supplemental file, (2) a sensitivity band for z_c and σ_H normalization, and (3) a title/abstract that doesn't overstate SKA's role. If those are fixed, I'd cite and use the results.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new indirect way to bound cosmological stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds (SGWBs) in the nHz/µHz band below the astrophysical foreground from supermassive black hole binaries. The method uses the fact that GW sources such as first-order phase transitions, domain walls, and scalar condensate fragmentation also generate small-scale density perturbations; if these perturbations are large enough, they form compact dark-matter subhalos whose abundance can be constrained by future SKA observations. The authors set the condition F=1 (no overproduction of subhalos), adopt zc=500 as the last collapse redshift, and translate this into upper limits on Omega_GW for bubble collisions, sound waves, and domain walls, claiming these limits lie orders of magnitude below the astrophysical foreground. Scalar-induced GWs are also discussed. The paper relies on a sigma_H vs alpha_* relation for first-order phase transitions taken from the authors' prior work (Ref. [84]) and on the Gaussian-tail integral in Eq. (3).

Significance. If the quantitative inputs were fully provided and verified, the paper would introduce a genuinely interesting and complementary probe: using compact dark-matter substructures to constrain cosmological GW sources below the SMBHB foreground, a regime that GW detectors alone may never access. The idea is physically well motivated, the conservative choices (F=1, vw=1, zc=500) are transparent, and the paper is clearly written. The main strength is the conceptual connection between GW-source parameters and small-scale density perturbations, which is a valuable direction for the field. However, the central FOPT bounds are exponentially sensitive to the sigma_H relation, which is not reproduced in the manuscript or the (absent) supplemental material, and some headline claims (SKA constraining the backgrounds, constraints on condensate fragmentation) go beyond what is actually computed. With the missing input supplied and the claims carefully rescaled, the result could be an important addition to the nHz/µHz SGWB literature.

major comments (4)

[Constraints on gravitational waves of cosmological origin (FOPT paragraph)] The upper limits on Omega_GW from first-order phase transitions are set through Eq. (3), which is exponentially sensitive to sigma_H, yet the relation sigma_H(alpha_*, beta/H_*) is not given anywhere in the text or Appendix A; the paper states only that it follows from the numerical methods of Ref. [84] and refers to a supplemental material that is absent from arXiv v1. Because a factor-of-2 uncertainty in sigma_H changes the allowed alpha_* and hence Omega_GW by orders of magnitude, the central quantitative claim is not independently checkable. Please include the explicit fit formula or numerical data used, and an estimate of its uncertainty, or clearly mark the bounds as conditional on that relation.
[Title and Abstract / Constraints section] The analysis derives upper limits by imposing F=1, i.e., a no-overproduction requirement, and the SKA sensitivity curve (brown dashed line in Figs. 1 and 2) is not used in the derivation; therefore the title/abstract claim that SKA constrains the cosmological backgrounds is not supported by the calculation. Please either rephrase the claim as a forecast of what SKA could constrain once subhalo abundance is measured, or propagate an actual SKA-based measurement or upper limit on F into the Omega_GW bounds.
[Observing the compact DM subhalos with pulsar timing / Constraints section] The bounds depend on the manually chosen zc=500, which enters Eq. (1) through (1+zc)^3 and the collapse threshold, and the text acknowledges that smaller zc gives tighter constraints; with a plausible range of zc the 'orders of magnitude below foreground' conclusion may shift. Please show the dependence of the derived Omega_GW limits on zc (e.g., a band or a few representative values) and justify the adopted value with a quantitative simulation-based statement rather than the qualitative reference to 'recent simulations [74, 75]'.
[Constraints on gravitational waves of cosmological origin (condensate fragmentation paragraph)] For scalar condensate fragmentation, the paper does not actually derive an upper limit from F≤1; it states that for Omega_phi=1 the peak is roughly Omega_GW≈10^-12, which is a fiducial model prediction, not a subhalo-abundance bound. Since the abstract and conclusion claim constraints on 'various sources' including condensate fragmentation, either derive the F≤1 bound for this source using delta_H ~ Omega_nabla (k_res/(a H_*))^{-3/2}, or restrict the claim to the sources for which a bound is computed.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract contains typographical errors: 'supermaissive' should be 'supermassive' and 'convinced gravitational wave background' should be 'convincing gravitational-wave background'; the Introduction also contains an orphan sentence fragment, 'not applicable to the nHz/µHz bands.', which appears to be a leftover and should be removed or completed.
[Observing the compact DM subhalos with pulsar timing] In the paragraph after Eq. (2), 'viral radius' should be 'virial radius'.
[Figure 2 caption] The right-panel label 'Fagmentation Temperature' in the Figure 2 caption should be 'Fragmentation Temperature'.
[Appendix A] The paper repeatedly refers to 'supplemental material' for the sigma_H relations and for detailed GW spectra, but no supplemental material is present in arXiv v1; please ensure it is included at resubmission, and ideally move the sigma_H relation and the condensation-fragmentation derivation into the main text or Appendix A.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the main FOPT bound rests on an unshown, self-cited sigma_H(alpha_*) relation, while the other source bounds are direct parameter mappings rather than circular derivations.

self citation load bearing [Section 'Constraints on gravitational waves of cosmological origin', first-order phase transition paragraph; Appendix A 'The GW energy spectra'.]
"For the first-order PTs, it has been demonstrated in Ref. [84] that σH is proportional to α∗ across various values of β/H∗, and the precise relationship between σH/α∗ and β/H∗ obtained by the numerical methods of Ref. [84]. Here, α∗ and β−1 represent the strength and the duration of the phase transition, respectively, see the supplemental material for details."

The FOPT upper limits in Fig. 1 are obtained by inverting the Gaussian-tail abundance integral Eq. (3) with F=1 to get a maximum σH, then converting σH to α* via the σH/α* relation from Ref. [84], and finally to ΩGW via Eqs. (A1)-(A4). The σH/α* relation is not displayed, fit, or reproduced; it is imported from a paper with overlapping authorship (Jing Liu), and the text defers the 'details' to a supplemental file that is absent from the arXiv v1. Because F in Eq. (3) is exponentially sensitive to the normalization of σH, the reported upper limits on α* and hence on ΩGW are not independently checkable within this paper. This makes the self-citation load-bearing for the central FOPT conclusion, even though it is not an equation-for-equation circularity.

full rationale

The paper's overall scheme is a mapping, not a self-referential derivation: a no-overproduction condition (F=1) is inserted into the Gaussian abundance integral Eq. (3), yielding a maximum horizon-entry density contrast σH; known GW-spectrum formulas then convert that σH into upper limits on ΩGW for each source class. No data are fitted, and no equation in the chain is defined in terms of the claimed final bound. The domain-wall and condensate-fragmentation constraints use independently cited simulation constants (A≈0.8, ϵ_gw≈0.7, lattice-derived ΩGW relations) and standard dimensional scalings, so those parts are not circular. The principal circularity-relevant weakness is the FOPT relation σH ∝ α*, which is taken from the coauthored Ref. [84] without giving the fit formula or the promised supplemental material; since σH sets the Gaussian-tail exponent in Eq. (3), the derived α* and ΩGW limits are extremely sensitive to this self-cited numerical input. The paper also candidly states that zc=500 is 'manually selected' and that the limits depend on zc, an acknowledged sensitivity rather than a circular step. Overall, the central claim has independent physical content, but the FOPT branch is not self-contained and leans on an unverified self-citation, warranting a moderate circularity score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of borrowed numerical relations: the Moore profile and abundance integral come from prior simulations, the sigma_H-to-source-parameter mappings are taken from lattice results and self-cited papers, and the zc=500 collapse redshift is manually chosen. The F=1 normalization is a no-overproduction condition rather than a measured constraint. Together these inputs determine the plotted upper limits, so the contribution is a re-parameterization of subhalo abundance bounds into gravitational wave bounds, with no code, data, or reproduced numerical tables provided.

free parameters (2)

zc (last collapse redshift) = 500
Manually selected as a 'more moderate case' because recent simulations disfavor zc >= 1000; the authors state the derived limits depend on zc, with smaller zc giving tighter constraints.
F (subhalo abundance upper limit) = 1
Set to unity as a conservative bound instead of applying gamma-ray constraints; all Omega_GW upper limits in Figs. 1-2 are obtained by imposing F <= 1.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Compact subhalos follow the Moore profile of Eq. (1) with rho_s approx 30(1+zc)^3 rho_m,0 and r_s approx 0.7[(1+zc)k_s]^{-1}, as found in simulations.
Adopted from Refs. [74,75]; this profile sets Mvir and hence the abundance fraction F.
domain assumption The collapsed fraction F is given by the Gaussian integral Eq. (3) with threshold delta_min from Ref. [76] and upper integration limit 0.3.
Assumes Gaussian, spiky density perturbations; no validation for non-Gaussian fields from domain walls or condensate fragmentation.
domain assumption For first-order phase transitions, sigma_H is proportional to alpha_* with a beta/H_*-dependent coefficient taken from numerical results of Ref. [84].
Borrowed from a self-cited paper and not derived or tabulated here; all FOPT bounds rest on it.
domain assumption For domain walls, sigma_H approx 2A sigma/(3Mpl^2 H_ann) with A approx 0.8; for condensate fragmentation, delta_H ~ Omega_grad (k_res/(aH_*))^{-3/2}.
These relations come from lattice simulations and prior analytic estimates; they convert subhalo bounds into source-parameter bounds.
domain assumption Dark matter is cold and collisionless, and compact subhalos survive until the adopted collapse redshift zc = 500.
The authors note the mechanism fails for fuzzy or warm DM, which erase small-scale structure; the cold DM assumption is load-bearing.
domain assumption The SMBHB foreground in the nHz/muHz band is treated as irreducible noise against cosmological backgrounds.
The paper motivates the indirect method by saying cosmological backgrounds 'are difficult to observe solely from the GW observations,' without a quantitative foreground-subtraction analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The power of SKA to Constrain cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds below the astrophysical foreground noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPD5YM6D

@misc{pith2026250614366,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The power of SKA to Constrain cosmological gravitational-wave backgrounds below the astrophysical foreground noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPD5YM6D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14366}
}

abstract

The inspirals of supermaissive black hole binaries provide a convinced gravitational wave background in the nHz band, serving as the fiducial model of the recent gravitational wave signal reported by the PTA experiments. The uncertainties of the number of binaries contributing to each frequency bin introduce a foreground noise in the nHz and $\mu$Hz bands against the observation of the underlying gravitational wave backgrounds of the cosmological origin. In this work, we investigate a new method to constrain the cosmological gravitational wave strength under the astrophysical foreground. The energy density fluctuations from cosmological gravitational-wave sources can generally trigger the formation of compact subhalos of dark matter, and the upcoming Square Kilometer Array has the ability to constrain the abundance of the subhalos at the $\mathcal{O}(1)$ level. The cosmological gravitational wave energy spectra from various sources are expected to be constrained several orders of magnitude below the astrophysical foreground, providing more strict constraints on the parameter spaces of corresponding new physics models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14366 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The peaks of current energy spectra of SGWBs from domain walls, corresponding to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

How large are curvature perturbations from slow first-order phase transitions? A gauge-invariant analysis
hep-ph 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Slow first-order phase transitions generate comoving curvature perturbations too small to form primordial black holes, with a new fitting template for the power spectrum.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[84]

Caprini et al

C. Caprini et al. , JCAP 03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020
[1]

We use vw to denote the velocity of the bubble walls, and set vw = 1 to obtain a conservative estimation of ΩGW

Bubble collisions For bubble collisions and sound waves, the energy spec- tra of SGWBs at present from are respectively given as follows [98]: ΩGW(f)h2 = 3.57× 10−5 g∗(T∗) 10 −1/3 0.48v3 w 1 + 5.3v2w + 5v4w × H∗ β 2 κϕα∗ 1 +α∗ 2 4 (f/fp)−2 + 3(f/fp)2/3 3/2 (A1) with fp = 1.13× 10−10Hz 0.35 1 + 0.07vw + 0.69v4w × β H∗ T∗ MeV g∗(T∗) 10 1/6 , (A2) and ΩGW(f)...
[2]

The peak frequency of GW energy spectrum can be estimated 6 as fp = 1.1×10−9Hz g∗(Tann) 10 1/2 × g∗s(Tann) 10 −1/3 Tann 10−2GeV

Domain walls The peak amplitude of GWs at the present is given by [70, 87] ΩGWh2 p = 7.2× 10−18˜ϵgwA2 g∗(Tann) 10 −4/3 × σ 1TeV3 2 Tann 10−2GeV −4 , (A5) whereσ is the tension of domain walls,Tann is the annihi- lation time of domain walls (theZ2 symmetry is explicitly broken by a bias term), and˜ϵgw≃ 0.7 and A≈ 0.8 are determined by the results of numeri...
[3]

Condensate fragmentation Post-inflation oscillations of the inflaton or spectator fields (when H < meff) result in the resonant amplifi- cation of perturbations through strong interactions. Be- cause of the nonlinear evolution, the GW energy spectra are obtained by lattice simulations [100–110], which are approximately written in a unified form [104] Ωcf ...
[4]

Caprini, J

C. Caprini, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012004 (2015), arXiv:1501.01174 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015
[5]

Kuroyanagi, T

S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba, and T. Takahashi, JCAP 11, 038 (2018), arXiv:1807.00786 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018
[6]

Caprini and D

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

arXiv 2018
[7]

Christensen, Rept

N. Christensen, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 016903 (2019), arXiv:1811.08797 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019

Show all 113 references

[8]

A. I. Renzini, B. Goncharov, A. C. Jenkins, and P. M. Meyers, Galaxies 10, 34 (2022), arXiv:2202.00178 [gr- qc]

2022 arXiv
[9]

Agazie et al

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

2023 arXiv
[10]

Agazie et al

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

2023 arXiv
[11]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astro- phys. 678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Antoniadis et al

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

2023 arXiv
[13]

Antoniadis et al

J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA), (2023), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[14]

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

2023 arXiv
[15]

Xu et al., Res

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

2023 arXiv
[16]

Agazie et al

G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 952, L37 (2023), arXiv:2306.16220 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[17]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. H¨ utsi, J. Raidal, J. Urru- tia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D 109, L021302 (2024), arXiv:2306.17021 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[18]

Shen, G.-W

Z.-Q. Shen, G.-W. Yuan, Y.-Y. Wang, and Y.-Z. Wang, (2023), arXiv:2306.17143 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[19]

Ghoshal and A

A. Ghoshal and A. Strumia, JCAP 02, 054 (2024), arXiv:2306.17158 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Bi, Y.-M

Y.-C. Bi, Y.-M. Wu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 120402 (2023), arXiv:2307.00722 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Zhang, N

C. Zhang, N. Dai, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, T. Jiang, and X. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104069 (2023), arXiv:2307.01093 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[22]

Fujikura, S

K. Fujikura, S. Girmohanta, Y. Nakai, and M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138203 (2023), arXiv:2306.17086 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[23]

Addazi, Y.-F

A. Addazi, Y.-F. Cai, A. Marciano, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015028 (2024), arXiv:2306.17205 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Megias, G

E. Megias, G. Nardini, and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095017 (2023), arXiv:2306.17071 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Y. Xiao, J. M. Yang, and Y. Zhang, Sci. Bull. 68, 3158 (2023), arXiv:2307.01072 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[26]

Li and K.-P

S.-P. Li and K.-P. Xie, Phys. Rev. D108, 055018 (2023), arXiv:2307.01086 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Ahmadvand, L

M. Ahmadvand, L. Bian, and S. Shakeri, Phys. Rev. D 108, 115020 (2023), arXiv:2307.12385 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Gouttenoire, Phys

Y. Gouttenoire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171404 (2023), arXiv:2307.04239 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Blasi, A

S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, and A. Sevrin, JHEP 11, 169 (2023), arXiv:2306.17830 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Barman, D

B. Barman, D. Borah, S. Jyoti Das, and I. Saha, JCAP 10, 053 (2023), arXiv:2307.00656 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[31]

Babichev, D

E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, R. Samanta, and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123529 (2023), arXiv:2307.04582 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[32]

G. B. Gelmini and J. Hyman, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138356 (2024), arXiv:2307.07665 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Zhang, C

Z. Zhang, C. Cai, Y.-H. Su, S. Wang, Z.-H. Yu, and H.-H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095037 (2023), arXiv:2307.11495 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[34]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. Lin, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103511 (2023), arXiv:2306.17147 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[35]

Kitajima and K

N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138213 (2023), arXiv:2306.17390 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[36]

Z. Wang, L. Lei, H. Jiao, L. Feng, and Y.-Z. Fan, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 120403 (2023), arXiv:2306.17150 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[37]

Lazarides, R

G. Lazarides, R. Maji, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095041 (2023), arXiv:2306.17788 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[38]

Eichhorn, R

A. Eichhorn, R. R. Lino dos Santos, and J. a. L. Miqueleto, Phys. Rev. D 109, 026013 (2024), arXiv:2306.17718 [gr-qc]. 7

2024 arXiv
[39]

Yamada and K

M. Yamada and K. Yonekura, JHEP 09, 197 (2023), arXiv:2307.06586 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Franciolini, A

G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermae, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 201401 (2023), arXiv:2306.17149 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Vagnozzi, JHEAp 39, 81 (2023), arXiv:2306.16912 [astro-ph.CO]

S. Vagnozzi, JHEAp 39, 81 (2023), arXiv:2306.16912 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[42]

Inomata, K

K. Inomata, K. Kohri, and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063506 (2024), arXiv:2306.17834 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[43]

Cai, X.-C

Y.-F. Cai, X.-C. He, X.-H. Ma, S.-F. Yan, and G.-W. Yuan, Sci. Bull. 68, 2929 (2023), arXiv:2306.17822 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[44]

Liu, Z.-C

L. Liu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 109, L061301 (2024), arXiv:2307.01102 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[45]

K. T. Abe and Y. Tada, Phys. Rev. D 108, L101304 (2023), arXiv:2307.01653 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[46]

Z. Yi, Q. Gao, Y. Gong, Y. Wang, and F. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 120404 (2023), arXiv:2307.02467 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[47]

Firouzjahi and A

H. Firouzjahi and A. Talebian, JCAP 10, 032 (2023), arXiv:2307.03164 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[48]

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

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

2023 arXiv
[49]

Z.-Q. You, Z. Yi, and Y. Wu, JCAP 11, 065 (2023), arXiv:2307.04419 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[50]

Ye and A

G. Ye and A. Silvestri, Astrophys. J. Lett. 963, L15 (2024), arXiv:2307.05455 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[51]

S. A. Hosseini Mansoori, F. Felegray, A. Talebian, and M. Sami, JCAP 08, 067 (2023), arXiv:2307.06757 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Balaji, G

S. Balaji, G. Dom` enech, and G. Franciolini, JCAP 10, 041 (2023), arXiv:2307.08552 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[53]

Jin, Z.-C

J.-H. Jin, Z.-C. Chen, Z. Yi, Z.-Q. You, L. Liu, and Y. Wu, JCAP 09, 016 (2023), arXiv:2307.08687 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[54]

B. Das, N. Jaman, and M. Sami, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103510 (2023), arXiv:2307.12913 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Ben-Dayan, U

I. Ben-Dayan, U. Kumar, U. Thattarampilly, and A. Verma, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103507 (2023), arXiv:2307.15123 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[56]

Liu, Z.-C

L. Liu, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP 11, 071 (2023), arXiv:2307.14911 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[57]

Yi, Z.-Q

Z. Yi, Z.-Q. You, and Y. Wu, JCAP 01, 066 (2024), arXiv:2308.05632 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Frosina and A

L. Frosina and A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103544 (2023), arXiv:2308.06915 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Bhaumik, R

N. Bhaumik, R. K. Jain, and M. Lewicki, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123532 (2023), arXiv:2308.07912 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[60]

Yuan, D.-S

C. Yuan, D.-S. Meng, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP 12, 036 (2023), arXiv:2308.07155 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[61]

M. A. Gorji, M. Sasaki, and T. Suyama, Phys. Lett. B 846, 138214 (2023), arXiv:2307.13109 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[62]

Afzal et al

A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[63]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. H¨ utsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vasko- nen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D109, 023522 (2024), arXiv:2308.08546 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[64]

Pan and H

Z. Pan and H. Yang, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 195020 (2020), arXiv:1910.09637 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[65]

Biscoveanu, C

S. Biscoveanu, C. Talbot, E. Thrane, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 241101 (2020), arXiv:2009.04418 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[66]

Sharma and J

A. Sharma and J. Harms, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063009 (2020), arXiv:2006.16116 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[67]

M. Li, J. Yu, and Z. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023009 (2025), arXiv:2403.01846 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[68]

Pan and H

Z. Pan and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123036 (2023), arXiv:2301.04529 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[69]

Lewicki and V

M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 168 (2023), arXiv:2111.05847 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[70]

Hindmarsh, S

M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 92, 123009 (2015), arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[71]

Cutting, M

D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123513 (2018), arXiv:1802.05712 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[72]

Y. Di, J. Wang, R. Zhou, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 251102 (2021), arXiv:2012.15625 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[73]

Hiramatsu, M

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP 02, 031 (2014), arXiv:1309.5001 [astro-ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[74]

W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden, and D. N. Spergel, Astro- phys. J. 347, 590 (1989)

1989
[75]

Liu, Phys

J. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123544 (2023)

2023
[76]

Gouttenoire, (2025), arXiv:2503.03857 [hep-ph]

Y. Gouttenoire, (2025), arXiv:2503.03857 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[77]

M. S. Delos, A. L. Erickcek, A. P. Bailey, and M. A. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 97, 041303 (2018), arXiv:1712.05421 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[78]

M. S. Delos, A. L. Erickcek, A. P. Bailey, and M. A. Alvarez, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063527 (2018), arXiv:1806.07389 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[79]

Bringmann, P

T. Bringmann, P. Scott, and Y. Akrami, Phys. Rev. D 85, 125027 (2012), arXiv:1110.2484 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[80]

P. A. Rosado, A. Sesana, and J. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 451, 2417 (2015), arXiv:1503.04803 [astro- ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[81]

Punturo et al

M. Punturo et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010)

2010
[82]

Reitze et al., Bull

D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[83]

Caprini et al

C. Caprini et al. , JCAP 04, 001 (2016), arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[85]

D. J. Weir, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376, 20170126 (2018), [Erratum: Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc.Lond.A 381, 20230212 (2023)], arXiv:1705.01783 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[86]

Mazumdar and G

A. Mazumdar and G. White, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 076901 (2019), arXiv:1811.01948 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[87]

J. Liu, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 051001 (2023), arXiv:2208.14086 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[88]

Y.-F. Cai, X. Tong, D.-G. Wang, and S.-F. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 081306 (2018), arXiv:1805.03639 [astro- ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[89]

Cai, Z.-K

R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, J. Liu, L. Liu, and X.-Y. Yang, JCAP 06, 013 (2020), arXiv:1912.10437 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[90]

Saikawa, Universe 3, 40 (2017), arXiv:1703.02576 [hep-ph]

K. Saikawa, Universe 3, 40 (2017), arXiv:1703.02576 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[91]

Sesana, A

A. Sesana, A. Vecchio, and C. N. Colacino, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.390, 192 (2008), arXiv:0804.4476 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[92]

Janssen et al

G. Janssen et al. , PoS AASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

2015 arXiv
[93]

¨Ozsoy and G

O. ¨Ozsoy and G. Tasinato, (2023), 10.3390/uni- verse9050203, arXiv:2301.03600 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

2023 arXiv
[94]

W. H. Press and P. Schechter, Astrophys. J. 187, 425 (1974)

1974
[95]

Kohri and T

K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123532 (2018), arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[96]

J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, JCAP 09, 012 (2018), arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph]

2018 arXiv
[97]

M. S. Delos and G. Franciolini, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083505 (2023), arXiv:2301.13171 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[98]

Sten Delos and J

M. Sten Delos and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 520, 4370 (2023), arXiv:2210.04904 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[99]

Barnaby, Phys

N. Barnaby, Phys. Rev. D 82, 106009 (2010), arXiv:1006.4615 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[100]

R.-G. Cai, C. Chen, and C. Fu, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083537 (2021), arXiv:2108.03422 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[101]

Arzoumanian et al

Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 251302 (2021), arXiv:2104.13930 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[102]

J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Ser- vant, JCAP 06, 028 (2010), arXiv:1004.4187 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[103]

Kofman, A

L. Kofman, A. D. Linde, and A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3258 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9704452

1997 arXiv
[104]

S. Y. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D 56, 653 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9701423

1997 arXiv
[105]

M. A. Amin, R. Easther, and H. Finkel, JCAP 12, 001 (2010), arXiv:1009.2505 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[106]

S.-Y. Zhou, E. J. Copeland, R. Easther, H. Finkel, Z.-G. Mou, and P. M. Saffin, JHEP 10, 026 (2013), arXiv:1304.6094 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[107]

K. D. Lozanov and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123504 (2019), arXiv:1902.06736 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[108]

Liu, Z.-K

J. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and G. Shiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 031301 (2018), arXiv:1707.09841 [astro- ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[109]

Oll´ e, O

J. Oll´ e, O. Pujol` as, and F. Rompineve, JCAP02, 006 (2020), arXiv:1906.06352 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[110]

Inomata, M

K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida, and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 131301 (2021), arXiv:2011.01270 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[111]

Kitajima, J

N. Kitajima, J. Soda, and Y. Urakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 121301 (2021), arXiv:2010.10990 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[112]

Ramberg and L

N. Ramberg and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 103, 063031 (2021), arXiv:2012.06882 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[113]

Kawasaki and H

M. Kawasaki and H. Nakatsuka, JCAP 05, 023 (2021), arXiv:2101.11244 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [84]

Caprini et al

C. Caprini et al. , JCAP 03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2020

[2] [1]

We use vw to denote the velocity of the bubble walls, and set vw = 1 to obtain a conservative estimation of ΩGW

Bubble collisions For bubble collisions and sound waves, the energy spec- tra of SGWBs at present from are respectively given as follows [98]: ΩGW(f)h2 = 3.57× 10−5 g∗(T∗) 10 −1/3 0.48v3 w 1 + 5.3v2w + 5v4w × H∗ β 2 κϕα∗ 1 +α∗ 2 4 (f/fp)−2 + 3(f/fp)2/3 3/2 (A1) with fp = 1.13× 10−10Hz 0.35 1 + 0.07vw + 0.69v4w × β H∗ T∗ MeV g∗(T∗) 10 1/6 , (A2) and ΩGW(f)...

[3] [2]

The peak frequency of GW energy spectrum can be estimated 6 as fp = 1.1×10−9Hz g∗(Tann) 10 1/2 × g∗s(Tann) 10 −1/3 Tann 10−2GeV

Domain walls The peak amplitude of GWs at the present is given by [70, 87] ΩGWh2 p = 7.2× 10−18˜ϵgwA2 g∗(Tann) 10 −4/3 × σ 1TeV3 2 Tann 10−2GeV −4 , (A5) whereσ is the tension of domain walls,Tann is the annihi- lation time of domain walls (theZ2 symmetry is explicitly broken by a bias term), and˜ϵgw≃ 0.7 and A≈ 0.8 are determined by the results of numeri...

[4] [3]

Condensate fragmentation Post-inflation oscillations of the inflaton or spectator fields (when H < meff) result in the resonant amplifi- cation of perturbations through strong interactions. Be- cause of the nonlinear evolution, the GW energy spectra are obtained by lattice simulations [100–110], which are approximately written in a unified form [104] Ωcf ...

[5] [4]

Caprini, J

C. Caprini, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012004 (2015), arXiv:1501.01174 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015

[6] [5]

Kuroyanagi, T

S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba, and T. Takahashi, JCAP 11, 038 (2018), arXiv:1807.00786 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2018

[7] [6]

Caprini and D

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

arXiv 2018

[8] [7]

Christensen, Rept

N. Christensen, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 016903 (2019), arXiv:1811.08797 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019