Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Testing Nambu-Goto approximation of cosmic string by lattice field simulations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lattice simulations find the Nambu-Goto approximation for cosmic strings holds for near-global and weakly coupled local strings, but breaks down when gauge and scalar masses are equal.

desk verdict First systematic network-level comparison of NG vs lattice GW spectra across gauge couplings, but the headline strong-coupling breakdown rests on a resolution-unconverged comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00685 v2 pith:PZZJ26BV submitted 2025-07-01 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th

Zizhuo Zhao , Ligong Bian , Jing Shu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th
keywords cosmicstringsNambu-GotoapproximationgravitationalwavebackgroundAbelian-Higgsmodellatticefieldtheorysimulationgaugecouplingcuspsandkinksparticleemission
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

Cosmic string networks are a leading source for stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds, and most forecasts use the Nambu-Goto (NG) approximation, which treats strings as infinitely thin. This paper tests that approximation by running Abelian-Higgs lattice field simulations with thermal evolution at three gauge couplings and comparing the resulting GW spectra with NG-based spectra. The authors find close agreement in the power-law region for near-global strings and for weakly coupled local strings, with cusps dominating near-global emission and kinks dominating local emission. For strongly coupled local strings with equal scalar and gauge boson masses, the NG spectra deviate substantially from the lattice results, and the paper concludes the NG approximation becomes unreliable there. The simulations also show that the GW energy is only about $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ of the particle energy, so any accurate model of string network energetics must include particle emission channels.

What carries the argument

The comparison is carried by two parallel spectral computations. On the field side, the Abelian-Higgs equations are evolved on a $1024^3$ lattice with a temperature-dependent potential, the scaling parameter $\xi$ is measured from identified strings, and the effective tension $\mu$ is calibrated by matching the total emission power to $P=8H^3\xi\mu$. The lattice GW spectrum is obtained from the transverse-traceless stress via the GW equation of motion. On the NG side, the same tension feeds the loop-emission formula with kink ($j^{-4/3}$) and cusp ($j^{-2}$) spectral slopes. The dial controlling the comparison is $\beta=m_v^2/m_s^2=2e^2/\lambda$, which sets the relative width of the gauge-field core; at $\beta=1$ the gauge-field width equals the scalar-field width and the NG approximation, which ignores width, breaks down.

What would settle it

Extrapolate the power-law GW spectrum for $e=\sqrt{\lambda/2}$ to zero lattice spacing by repeating the simulation at several finer grid spacings; if the discrepancy with the Nambu-Goto prediction shrinks or vanishes in that limit, the claimed breakdown is an artifact, whereas if it persists, the finite-width explanation is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a coupling-dependent validity boundary for the Nambu-Goto description of cosmic strings. In a $1024^3$ lattice simulation of the Abelian-Higgs model, the GW spectrum computed from the full field evolution matches NG predictions in the power-law region for $e=0.0005$ (near-global) and $e=0.05$, once the tension is calibrated from $P=8H^3\xi\mu$ and the loop radiation parameter $\Gamma$ is adjusted; the authors infer cusp dominance for near-global strings and kink dominance for weakly coupled local strings. At $e=\sqrt{\lambda/2}$, where the gauge and scalar field masses coincide, the NG spectra differ significantly from the lattice spectra, and the paper attributes this to the finite width of the gauge-field core that the NG approximation neglects. The same simulations give a GW-to-particle energy ratio of order $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$, so particle emission dominates the energy loss for both near-global and local networks.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes the mismatch seen for the strongest coupling, where the gauge and scalar masses are equal, is a real finite-width effect rather than a numerical grid artifact; the paper does not extrapolate to zero lattice spacing.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For near-global and weakly coupled local string networks, NG-based stochastic background forecasts remain usable in the power-law region that dominates the spectrum's broad-frequency behavior.
  • For strongly coupled local strings with $m_v/m_s\sim 1$, NG-based spectra should not be trusted, and full field-theory simulations are needed for reliable gravitational wave predictions.
  • The dominant GW emission source is coupling-dependent: cusps for near-global strings and kinks for weakly coupled local strings, fixing the spectral slope to use in NG forecasts.
  • Particle emission dominates the energy budget, with $\rho_{\rm gw}/\rho_p\sim 10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$, so particle channels cannot be neglected when modeling string network energetics or dark-matter production.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the breakdown is physical, the transition between NG-valid and NG-invalid behavior could be mapped by scanning gauge couplings between $e=0.05$ and $e=\sqrt{\lambda/2}$, giving observers a simple threshold for when NG forecasts are unsafe.
  • The finite-width explanation predicts that the discrepancy should track the structure of the gauge-field core; computing GW spectra from individual oscillating loops at different couplings would test this directly without network complications.
  • Because the strongest-coupling result is not extrapolated to zero lattice spacing, a prudent reading is that the claimed breakdown is provisional until a finer-grid or continuum extrapolation confirms it.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript performs 1024^3 Abelian-Higgs lattice simulations for three gauge couplings (e=0.0005, e=0.05, and e=sqrt(lambda/2) with lambda=0.2), extracts string network scaling and an effective string tension from energy emission, computes gravitational-wave (GW) spectra directly from the lattice and from a Nambu-Goto (NG) loop-emission formula using loops identified in the same simulation, and compares the two. For the two smaller couplings it reports agreement in the power-law region after adjusting the parameters gamma and Gamma, and for e=sqrt(lambda/2) it reports a significant discrepancy that it attributes to finite string width. It also computes the ratio of gravitational to particle emission energy and finds particle emission dominates by approximately 10^-3 to 10^-2.

Significance. If the strong-coupling breakdown and the cusp/kink dominance assignment were robustly demonstrated, this would be an important calibration of NG-based SGWB predictions for local strings with mv~ms, with direct relevance for LISA and pulsar timing array forecasts; the quantitative particle-to-GW energy ratio is also a useful result. The paper provides code and compares full networks rather than isolated loops, which is a step beyond several earlier studies. However, the currently demonstrated evidence is weaker than the conclusions suggest: the agreement for the two smaller couplings is obtained after normalizing the amplitude with fitted parameters, and the breakdown at strong coupling rests on a single resolution with no continuum extrapolation, so the headline negative claim is not yet established at the level claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Material, "The influence of d~x"] For the case e=sqrt(lambda/2), the resolution test shows that changing d~x from 0.1 to 0.05 changes the GW spectrum and introduces a double-peak structure at higher momenta, i.e., in the k~ms=mv region that the main text uses to attribute the NG discrepancy to the gauge-field width. Because the test changes resolution while holding the lattice size fixed, the physical volume also changes, and no finer refinement, no fixed-volume comparison, and no dx->0 extrapolation are provided. The claim that the NG approximation becomes unreliable at strong coupling therefore is not demonstrated to be a physical finite-width effect rather than a lattice artifact, and the conclusion should be correspondingly tempered or supplemented by a convergence study.
  2. [Section "Numerical results", Eqs. (10)-(11) and Fig. 2] The parameter gamma is adjusted so that Ptot/P stabilizes at unity, and the parameter Gamma is subsequently set to Gamma0/10, Gamma0, and 2Gamma0 for the three cases. The agreement between lattice and NG spectra in the power-law region is therefore agreement after matching the overall normalization; what is tested is primarily the spectral shape and slope. The absolute amplitude is not a free prediction of the NG model in this comparison, and the claim that the NG approximation is validated for near-global and weakly-coupled local strings should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Supplemental Material, "Calculation of GW spectrum for NG strings"] The NG spectrum is computed by taking loops identified in the lattice simulation and inserting their length distribution into Eq. (14). This tests the loop-emission formula for lattice-identified loops, but it does not test the NG network dynamics (loop production, reconnection, and loop number density) that the NG approximation is usually used to model. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and avoid presenting the comparison as a full end-to-end validation of the NG approximation for network evolution.
  4. [Section "Numerical results", Fig. 2] Because the code cannot distinguish cusps from kinks, the choice between the kink spectral index (j^{-4/3}) and the cusp spectral index (j^{-2}) is made after inspecting which one matches the lattice spectrum. The conclusion that near-global strings are cusp-dominated and local strings are kink-dominated is therefore an assumption used to obtain agreement, not an independent prediction, and it should be flagged as such.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section "The simulation setup"] The abstract calls the simulations "zero-temperature," but the model includes the thermal potential term in Eq. (2) and the initial conditions are thermal; please clarify whether the evolution after the phase transition is treated as zero-temperature or whether the thermal term remains active.
  2. [Section "The simulation setup"] The text refers to an "FLR W metric," which appears to be a typo for the FLRW metric; please correct it.
  3. [Supplemental Material, "The influence of d~x"] The resolution section refers to "e = sqrt(lambda)" while the main text uses e = sqrt(lambda/2); the two should be made consistent.
  4. [Throughout] The notation for the grid interval is typeset inconsistently (d~x, d˜x, dx) and should be unified to avoid confusion about comoving versus physical spacing.
  5. [Section "Numerical results"] The statement in the Introduction that previous studies Refs. [24-29] are based on individual loops is inaccurate; at least Refs. [26,28,38,39] simulate string networks, so the claimed novelty of using the entire network should be moderated.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Positive NG validation is partly manufactured by construction: gamma is fit to the simulated total power and Gamma is hand-tuned per case to set the NG amplitude; cusp/kink selection and the shape-function check are post hoc or self-referential, while the e=sqrt(lambda/2) breakdown claim retains independent shape-based content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Numerical results' after Fig. 1; Eqs. (10), (11), (14); Supplemental 'Calculation of emission power and string tension']
    "Then we adjust the parameter gamma in Eqs.(10) until the theoretical prediction P = 8H^3 xi mu aligns with Ptot, ensuring that the ratio Ptot/P stabilizes at unity. ... Additionally, we adjust the parameter Gamma slightly. With the standard value Gamma ~ 50 recorded as Gamma0, we set Gamma = Gamma0/10 for the near-global case, Gamma = Gamma0 for e = 0.05, and Gamma = 2 Gamma0 for e = sqrt(lambda/2)."

    The NG spectrum in Eq.(14) is proportional to Gamma (G mu)^2. The tension mu is not predicted from first principles: gamma in Eq.(10) is adjusted until 8H^3 xi mu equals the lattice-measured total emission power Ptot, and then Gamma is hand-set separately for each coupling so that the NG amplitude lands in the power-law region of the same lattice spectrum that is being validated. Thus the claimed 'agreement' for e=0.0005 and e=0.05 is partly by construction: the normalization of the NG curve is fitted to the data it is then said to confirm. Only the spectral shape (slope and turnover) remains an unfitted, non-trivial test.

  2. other [Main text, 'Numerical results', shape-function paragraph; Eq. (12); Supplemental 'GW spectrum shape function']
    "With the GW spectrum calculated by lattice method, the shape function F (x, y) can be derived, and a new spectrum can be computed using Eq. (12). ... Consequently, to verify this approach, we restrict the integration to our simulation period, presenting results at ln(ms/H) = 5.5 in Fig.2, which confirms that the GW spectrum derived from F (x, y) aligns closely with our previous results."

    The shape function F is derived from the same lattice quantity d rho_gw / dk that Eq.(12) is then used to reproduce, so the agreement between the reconstructed curve and the original lattice spectrum is essentially a self-consistency identity rather than an independent check of the NG approximation or of the extrapolation method. The verification has no predictive content: the output spectrum is obtained by feeding the measured spectrum back through Eq.(12). This does not affect the main breakdown claim, but it inflates the appearance of validation.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Numerical results', paragraph 'The GW sources for NG strings are kinks and cusps...']
    "The GW sources for NG strings are kinks and cusps, but our code can not explicitly distinguish between these two types. Therefore, we assume that GWs are sourced only by either kinks or cusps, represented by solid circles and open inverted triangles, respectively, in Fig. 2, to determine which source dominates in our simulations. ... Therefore, we assume GWs from local string are kink-dominated, whereas those from near-global string are cusp-dominated."

    The claim that near-global strings are cusp-dominated and weakly coupled local strings are kink-dominated is a post hoc model selection: the paper chooses the discrete spectral index (j^-2 vs j^-4/3) after seeing which one visually matches the lattice spectrum. This selection reduces the evidential weight of the subsequent 'agreement' because the agreement is used both to identify the dominant source and to validate the NG approximation; the two conclusions are not independent. The choice is not a fitted continuous parameter, so it is less severe than the Gamma tuning, but it is still a data-informed choice presented as a finding.

full rationale

The central breakdown claim for e = sqrt(lambda/2) is not circular: the lattice and NG spectra differ in overall shape and peak location, and no global rescaling of Gamma can turn the NG power-law form into the lattice spectrum's structure, so the conclusion retains independent content. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. However, the positive validation of the NG approximation for e = 0.0005 and e = 0.05 is substantially manufactured. The tension mu entering Eq.(14) is fixed by tuning gamma until 8H^3 xi mu equals the lattice-measured total emission power Ptot, and Gamma is then adjusted by hand per case (Gamma0/10, Gamma0, 2Gamma0) to place the NG amplitude in the power-law region. Because the NG spectrum is linear in Gamma and quadratic in mu, the amplitude agreement is forced by construction; the only free content is the spectral shape. The cusp/kink 'dominance' assignment is made after inspecting which spectral index matches the lattice data, and the shape-function verification reconstructs the spectrum from the same d rho_gw/dk from which F was derived, making it a self-consistency check rather than a prediction. These considerations justify a partial-circularity score of 6. Apart from circularity, the e = sqrt(lambda/2) breakdown comparison is presented at a single resolution d~x = 0.1, while the Supplement reports that d~x = 0.05 changes the high-momentum spectrum and introduces a double-peak structure; this is a resolution-convergence concern, not a circularity, and should be assessed under robustness rather than as a definitional reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison relies on the scaling-network emission power from Ref. [40], the logarithmic scaling assumption for xi, and the transfer of the lattice loop population into the NG loop-emission formula; the fitted parameters gamma, Gamma, and the spectral-index choice carry much of the apparent agreement.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma (tension shape parameter) = sqrt(4*pi*gamma) = 0.50 (e=0.0005), 0.85 (e=0.05), 4.20 (e=sqrt(lambda/2))
    Adjusted so that Ptot/P stabilizes at unity; enters the string tension in Eq. (10) and thus scales the NG GW spectrum in Eq. (14).
  • Gamma (loop GW emission efficiency) = Gamma0/10 (near-global), Gamma0 (e=0.05), 2*Gamma0 (e=sqrt(lambda/2)), with Gamma0 ~ 50
    Explicitly adjusted to bring the NG spectrum into agreement with the lattice spectrum in the power-law region.
  • kink vs cusp spectral index choice = q = 2 (cusps) for e=0.0005; q = 4/3 (kinks) for e=0.05
    The code cannot distinguish the sources, so the authors assume one or the other and pick the better match to the lattice spectrum, making the spectral-shape agreement partly a selection.
  • q in shape function F(x,y) = q ~ 2 for e=0.0005 and e=0.05
    Fitted to the lattice GW spectra to extend the spectrum via Eq. (12); not used in the central comparison but used for the wide-band extension.
  • rMu^3 fit in Eq. (22) = proportional to (ln(ms/H))^3, fitted to simulation data
    Used in the Supplemental to construct Pg(t) for the extended spectrum via Eq. (22).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The energy emission power of a scaling string network is P(t0) = 8H^3(t) xi(t) mu(t) (Eq. 11), derived for global strings in Ref. [40] and assumed valid for local strings.
    Main text states 'Although this equation is derived for global strings, its limiting behavior also applies to local strings.' The extraction of mu depends on this.
  • domain assumption The scaling parameter follows xi proportional to ln(ms/H) throughout the simulation.
    Used in Eq. (11) and in fitting mu; main text: 'the scaling parameter follows the expected logarithmic dependence xi proportional to ln(mr/H) across all cases'.
  • ad hoc to paper The loop population identified in the lattice simulation can be inserted into the Nambu-Goto loop-emission formula (Eq. 14) as the loop number density n(t,l).
    This is the methodological bridge between field theory and NG approximation; if the NG network's loop production differs, the test only checks the GW emission formula, not the full NG dynamics.
  • domain assumption The shape function F(x,y) is independent of cosmic history and retains its power-law form, so Eq. (12) can extend the spectrum.
    Main text: 'Assuming F(x,y) ... remains unchanged throughout cosmic history'.
  • domain assumption The lattice EOMs with the finite-temperature potential (Eq. 2) describe the phase transition and network evolution correctly at the chosen resolution.
    Standard modeling assumption, but the resolution study in the Supplemental shows resolution dependence for e=sqrt(lambda/2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing Nambu-Goto approximation of cosmic string by lattice field simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZZJ26BV

@misc{pith2026250700685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing Nambu-Goto approximation of cosmic string by lattice field simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZZJ26BV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00685}
}
abstract

The precise calculation of gravitational wave (GW) from cosmic string networks is of significant theoretical and experimental interest. The Nambu--Goto (NG) approximation has long been employed to calculate GW emission from such networks; however, its validity has never been systematically verified. We perform large-scale zero-temperature Abelian-Higgs lattice simulations under different gauge couplings, and compare them with NG predictions. We find excellent agreement in the power-law region for near-global strings but strong deviation for strongly coupled local strings with $m_v/m_s \sim 1$, quantitatively establishing the breakdown of the NG approximation. Additionally, we confirm that particle emission significantly dominates the energy loss of the string network, with the ratio of GW energy to particle energy approximately $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-2}$ for both near-global and local string scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The evolution of scaling parameter for all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GW spectrum for all cases. Solid lines and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fig.3. The detailed calculation and some other results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: the ratio Ptot/P. Right: the parameter rµ3 , with fitted results indicated by dashed lines. Calculation of GW spectrum for NG strings Following lattice simulations, the GW spectrum from string loops can be computed using Eq. (14) by statistically analyzing loop n…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The GW spectrum for the new local case ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The shape function F(x, y) of GW spectrum. The dashed line is the fitted line. where the excitation of the radial component of the scalar field is neglected. We assume, for simplicity, the equality of gradient and kinetic energies for the scalar field, as well as the e…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: Evolution of particle number density. Right: Particle spectra. Solid and dashed lines correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GW spectra calculated with different dx˜ for e = 0.0005(left) and e = p λ/2 (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Particle spectra calculated with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational Waves from Superconducting Cosmic Strings

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Lattice simulations show the gravitational-wave spectrum from superconducting cosmic strings develops a coupling-dependent suppression at high frequencies, distinguishing them from ordinary Abelian–Higgs strings.

  2. Not-quite-primordial black holes seeded by cosmic string loops

    astro-ph.CO 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Cosmic string loops moving through the early universe can seed halos that collapse into 10^5 solar mass black holes, potentially explaining JWST's little red dots.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  2. [2]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  3. [3]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Physical Review D 64 (2001), 10.1103/physrevd.64.064008

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.064008 2001

  4. [4]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3761 (2000)

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    R. e. a. Abbott (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 241102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    B. P. e. a. Abbott (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 97, 102002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Auclair, J

    P. Auclair, J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. G. Figueroa, A. C. Jenkins, M. Lewicki, M. Sakellariadou, S. Sanidas, L. Sousa, D. A. Steer, J. M. Wachter, and S. Kuroy- anagi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2020, 034 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Yonemaru, S

    N. Yonemaru, S. Kuroyanagi, G. Hobbs, K. Takahashi, X.-J. Zhu, W. A. Coles, S. Dai, E. Howard, R. Manch- ester, D. Reardon, C. Russell, R. M Shannon, N. Thya- garajan, R. Spiewak, and J.-B. Wang, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 501, 701–712 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    S. A. Sanidas, R. A. Battye, and B. W. Stappers, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122003 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Nanohertz gravitational waves from cosmic strings and dark photon dark matter,

    N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama, “Nanohertz gravitational waves from cosmic strings and dark photon dark matter,” (2023), arXiv:2306.17390 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Z. Wang, L. Lei, H. Jiao, L. Feng, and Y.-Z. Fan, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 66 (2023), 10.1007/s11433-023-2262-0

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    L. Bian, J. Shu, B. Wang, Q. Yuan, and J. Zong, Physical Review D 106 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.106.l101301

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983). 6

    1983

  6. [14]

    Abbott and P

    L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Physics Letters B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  7. [15]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Physics Letters B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  8. [16]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, The Physics of the Dark Photon: A Primer (Springer Inter- national Publishing, 2021)

    2021

  9. [18]

    Vanchurin, K

    V. Vanchurin, K. Olum, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063514 (2005)

    2005

  10. [19]

    K. D. Olum and V. Vanchurin, Phys. Rev. D 75, 063521 (2007)

    2007

  11. [20]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, Phys. Rev. D 83, 083514 (2011)

    2011

  12. [21]

    However, although widely applied, the discrepancy between the GW spectra calcu- lated through the NG approximation and lattice simula- tions has not yet been rigorously evaluated

    and the LRS model [22]. However, although widely applied, the discrepancy between the GW spectra calcu- lated through the NG approximation and lattice simula- tions has not yet been rigorously evaluated. In this Letter, we compute GW spectra using both lat- tice field simulati...

    2025 arXiv

  13. [22]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, Phys. Rev. D 89, 023512 (2014)

    2014

  14. [23]

    Lorenz, C

    L. Lorenz, C. Ringeval, and M. Sakellariadou, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2010, 003–003 (2010)

    2010

  15. [24]

    Dark photon dark mat- ter from cosmic strings and gravitational wave back- ground,

    N. Kitajima and K. Nakayama, “Dark photon dark mat- ter from cosmic strings and gravitational wave back- ground,” (2023), arXiv:2212.13573 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Saurabh, T

    A. Saurabh, T. Vachaspati, and L. Pogosian, Physical Review D 101 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.083522

    2020 doi

  17. [26]

    Baeza-Ballesteros, E

    J. Baeza-Ballesteros, E. J. Copeland, D. G. Figueroa, and J. Lizarraga, Physical Review D 110 (2024), 10.1103/physrevd.110.043522

    2024 doi

  18. [30]

    Gravitational wave emission from cosmic string loops, ii: Local case,

    J. Baeza-Ballesteros, E. J. Copeland, D. G. Figueroa, and J. Lizarraga, “Gravitational wave emission from cosmic string loops, ii: Local case,” (2024), arXiv:2408.02364 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [31]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valken- burg, Computer Physics Communications 283, 108586 (2023)

    2023

  20. [32]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valken- burg, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 035 (2021)

    2021

  21. [33]

    Code available at GitHub: github.com/ZizhuoZhao23/NG test simulation code

  22. [34]

    Magnetic field effects on electroweak phase transition and baryon asymmetry,

    Y. Di, L. Bian, and R.-G. Cai, “Magnetic field effects on electroweak phase transition and baryon asymmetry,” (2024), arXiv:2409.16124 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [35]

    Adshead, J

    P. Adshead, J. T. Giblin, M. Pieroni, and Z. J. Weiner, Physical Review Letters 124 (2020), 10.1103/phys- revlett.124.171301

    2020 doi

  24. [36]

    Albrecht and N

    A. Albrecht and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1868 (1985)

    1985

  25. [37]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and G. Villadoro, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (2018), 10.1007/jhep07(2018)151

    2018 doi

  26. [38]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and G. Villadoro, SciPost Physics 10 (2021), 10.21468/scipostphys.10.2.050

    2021 doi

  27. [39]

    Hindmarsh, J

    M. Hindmarsh, J. Lizarraga, J. Urrestilla, D. Dave- rio, and M. Kunz, Physical Review D 96 (2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.023525

    2017 doi

  28. [40]

    Hindmarsh, J

    M. Hindmarsh, J. Lizarraga, J. Urrestilla, D. Dave- rio, and M. Kunz, Physical Review D 99 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.083522

    2019 doi

  29. [41]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and H. Nicolaescu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021, 034 (2021)

    2021

  30. [42]

    Sousa, P

    L. Sousa, P. Avelino, and G. Guedes, Physical Review D 101 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.101.103508

    2020 doi

  31. [43]

    Cosmic sim- ulations of axion string-wall networks: Probing dark matter and gravitational waves for discovery,

    Y. Li, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, and J. Shu, “Cosmic sim- ulations of axion string-wall networks: Probing dark matter and gravitational waves for discovery,” (2024), arXiv:2311.02011 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [44]

    Gravitational wave and dark matter from axion-higgs string,

    Y. Jia and L. Bian, “Gravitational wave and dark matter from axion-higgs string,” (2024), arXiv:2412.04218 [hep- ph]. 7 Supplemental Material Initial conditions for the scalar field The initial temperature is chosen to be above the critical temperature of the phase transition,...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.