Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Gauge-independent Gravitational Waves from Cogenesis in a $B-L$ Conserving Universe

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-18 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In a B-L conserving extension, equal and opposite lepton asymmetries in visible and hidden sectors are converted by sphalerons into baryon asymmetry at a dark first-order phase transition that also produces detectable gravitational waves.

desk verdict The paper links cogenesis of baryon asymmetry and dark matter to gravitational waves from a dark-sector first-order phase transition using gauge-independent bubble nucleation valid in the supercooled regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.13770 v2 submitted 2025-10-15 hep-ph

Wan-Zhe Feng , Jinzheng Li , Pran Nath , Zong-Huan Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords baryogenesiscogenesisgravitationalwavesphasetransitiondarkmattersphaleronsB-Lsymmetrysector
topics Matter-Antimatter AsymmetryDark Matter
open problems Dark MatterMatter-Antimatter Asymmetry
checked against reality_from_one_distinctionalexander_duality_circle_linking
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

The paper shows that CP violation from Yukawa couplings creates equal and opposite lepton asymmetries between the visible sector and a hidden sector carrying lepton number. Lepton number stays conserved separately in each sector, so sphaleron processes can turn part of the visible lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry around the temperature of the first-order phase transition. The authors compute the resulting stochastic gravitational wave spectrum with a gauge-independent bubble nucleation method that remains valid even when the universe supercools and the percolation temperature is far below the dark photon mass. Parameter scans identify regions where the same setup matches the observed baryon asymmetry and dark matter density while predicting gravitational wave signals accessible to pulsar timing arrays and future detectors.

What carries the argument

Gauge-independent bubble nucleation dynamics for the first-order phase transition in the U(1)_x dark sector, which computes the gravitational wave spectrum valid even in the supercooled regime where the percolation temperature is much smaller than the dark photon mass.

What would settle it

A null result for stochastic gravitational waves in the frequency bands predicted by the viable parameter regions that reproduce the observed baryon asymmetry and dark matter density would rule out the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

With CP violation induced by Yukawa couplings, equal and opposite lepton asymmetries are generated in the visible and hidden sectors. Subsequent evolution preserves lepton number separately in each sector, and sphaleron interactions partially convert the lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry near the temperature of the first-order phase transition. Stochastic gravitational wave background production is discussed for the first-order phase transition using a gauge-independent bubble nucleation dynamics which yields spectra also valid in the supercooled low-temperature regime with T_p/m_{A_x} << 1. A parameter-space scan identifies regions that simultaneously account for cogenesis of baryon as

Load-bearing premise

The model parameters can be chosen to make sphaleron conversion produce the observed baryon asymmetry while the same first-order phase transition simultaneously yields the dark matter density and detectable gravitational waves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Baryon asymmetry arises from partial sphaleron conversion of a visible-sector lepton asymmetry.
  • Dark matter density and baryon asymmetry are explained together in the same parameter space.
  • Stochastic gravitational wave signals fall within reach of NANOGrav, EPTA, PPTA and higher-frequency future detectors.
  • The gravitational wave spectrum calculation holds in supercooled regimes with T_p much less than m_{A_x}.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Measurements of the gravitational wave peak frequency could be used to infer the dark photon mass or the strength of the phase transition.
  • A confirmed gravitational wave signal in the predicted range would provide indirect evidence for the hidden-sector lepton asymmetry required by the cogenesis mechanism.
  • The framework suggests that maintaining B-L conservation is compatible with successful baryogenesis when lepton asymmetries are generated separately in two sectors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes baryogenesis and stochastic gravitational wave production in an extension of the Standard Model featuring a dark sector with U(1)_x gauge symmetry. It demonstrates that CP violation from Yukawa couplings generates equal and opposite lepton asymmetries in visible and hidden sectors, with lepton number conserved separately in each. Sphaleron interactions convert part of the visible lepton asymmetry to baryon asymmetry near the first-order phase transition temperature. The paper computes the stochastic GW background using gauge-independent bubble nucleation dynamics valid in the supercooled regime where T_p / m_{A_x} << 1, and performs a parameter scan identifying regions that explain baryon asymmetry, dark matter density, and predict detectable GW signals for current and future detectors.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work offers a unified framework for cogenesis of baryon asymmetry and dark matter alongside associated gravitational wave signals from the phase transition. The gauge-independent treatment of bubble nucleation provides a strength by extending validity to supercooled low-temperature regimes, which is a notable technical contribution. The parameter scan linking model parameters to observable GW spectra adds to the falsifiability of the scenario.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and parameter scan discussion] The claim that sphaleron interactions partially convert the lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry near the percolation temperature T_p relies on T_p remaining above the electroweak scale (~100 GeV) where sphalerons stay in equilibrium. The manuscript explicitly considers the supercooled regime with T_p/m_{A_x} << 1, which permits T_p well below this scale. No explicit verification is provided that the parameter scan enforces T_p ≳ 100 GeV for points simultaneously reproducing the observed baryon asymmetry, dark matter density, and a sufficiently strong first-order transition. This assumption is load-bearing for the cogenesis mechanism (see abstract and the discussion of sphaleron conversion).
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief explicit reference to the specific gauge-independent bubble nucleation formalism employed, to aid readers unfamiliar with recent developments in this technique.
  2. Notation for the dark photon mass m_{A_x} and percolation temperature T_p is clear in the abstract but should be consistently defined at first use in the main text with a dedicated equation or table entry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. The concern raised about ensuring the percolation temperature remains above the electroweak scale for sphaleron conversion is well-taken. We address this below and will update the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and parameter scan discussion] The claim that sphaleron interactions partially convert the lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry near the percolation temperature T_p relies on T_p remaining above the electroweak scale (~100 GeV) where sphalerons stay in equilibrium. The manuscript explicitly considers the supercooled regime with T_p/m_{A_x} << 1, which permits T_p well below this scale. No explicit verification is provided that the parameter scan enforces T_p ≳ 100 GeV for points simultaneously reproducing the observed baryon asymmetry, dark matter density, and a sufficiently strong first-order transition. This assumption is load-bearing for the cogenesis mechanism (see abstract and the discussion of sphaleron conversion).

    Authors: We agree with the referee that this is a crucial point for the validity of the cogenesis mechanism. In our analysis, the parameter scan is performed such that the viable points have T_p above the electroweak scale to allow for sphaleron processes to be active near the percolation temperature. The supercooled condition T_p / m_{A_x} << 1 is satisfied by having a sufficiently large m_{A_x} relative to T_p, but T_p itself is kept above ~100 GeV by the choice of the dark sector potential parameters. To address the lack of explicit verification, we will add a dedicated discussion in the revised manuscript, including a statement that all scanned points satisfying the baryon asymmetry, dark matter relic density, and strong first-order transition criteria also fulfill T_p > 100 GeV. This can be verified by imposing an additional cut in the scan. We believe this clarification will resolve the concern without altering the main results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: derivation proceeds from model Lagrangian and standard processes

full rationale

The paper constructs lepton asymmetries from CP violation in Yukawa couplings, evolves them with separate lepton-number conservation per sector, applies sphaleron conversion near the PT temperature, and generates GW spectra from gauge-independent bubble nucleation valid for T_p/m_{A_x} << 1. These steps rely on explicit dynamics and external benchmarks rather than any self-definitional loop, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The parameter scan selects viable points matching observed baryon asymmetry and DM density but leaves the GW output as an independent dynamical prediction, not a tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model relies on several domain assumptions typical of beyond-Standard-Model cosmology; without full text the exact number of fitted parameters is unknown but the abstract implies multiple scales and couplings are adjusted to fit observations.

free parameters (3)
  • Yukawa couplings
    Induce CP violation to generate lepton asymmetries; values chosen to produce observed baryon asymmetry
  • Dark photon mass m_Ax
    Sets the scale for the first-order phase transition and GW frequency spectrum
  • Percolation temperature Tp
    Adjusted relative to m_Ax to enter the supercooled regime Tp/m_Ax << 1
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Sphaleron interactions partially convert lepton asymmetry to baryon asymmetry near the phase transition temperature
    Invoked in the abstract to link visible sector lepton asymmetry to observed baryon asymmetry
  • domain assumption Lepton number is preserved separately in visible and hidden sectors after initial generation
    Allows equal and opposite asymmetries without violating total B-L
invented entities (2)
  • U(1)_x gauge symmetry
    purpose: Charges dark matter particles and enables first-order phase transition in dark sector
    New gauge symmetry postulated to separate dark matter from visible sector while allowing cogenesis
  • Dark photon A_x
    purpose: Mediator whose mass sets the phase transition scale and GW spectrum
    Postulated vector boson in the dark sector

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gauge-independent Gravitational Waves from Cogenesis in a $B-L$ Conserving Universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2510.13770

@misc{pith2026251013770,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gauge-independent Gravitational Waves from Cogenesis in a $B-L$ Conserving Universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2510.13770}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13770}
}
abstract

An analysis of baryogenesis and stochastic gravitational wave production is presented for an extension of the standard model where the dark sector consists of dark matter particles charged under a $U(1)_x$ gauge symmetry, while a subset of dark fields also carry lepton number but no $U(1)_x$ charge. We demonstrate that with CP violation induced by Yukawa couplings, equal and opposite lepton asymmetries are generated in the visible and hidden sectors. Subsequent evolution preserves lepton number separately in each sector, and sphaleron interactions partially convert the lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry near the temperature of the first-order phase transition. Further, we discuss stochastic gravitational wave background production for the first-order phase transition using a gauge-independent bubble nucleation dynamics which yields spectra also valid in the supercooled low-temperature regime with {$T_p/m_{A_x} \ll 1$} where $T_p$ is the percolation temperature and $m_{A_x}$ is the dark photon mass. A parameter-space scan identifies regions that simultaneously account for cogenesis of baryon asymmetry and dark matter and predict stochastic gravitational wave signals within reach of current (NANOGrav, EPTA, PPTA) and future detectors at higher frequencies, providing a unified framework for cogenesis and associated gravitational wave production.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13770 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Thermal evolution of YAx , YX, Ysym, Ysym′ for four benchmark models labeled by ϵ, gx, mAx as given in each of the four panels. The plots show the comoving number densities of asymmetric dark matter X, its symmetric component (Ysym = 2YX), and the dark photon Ax as functions of the universe temperature. Ysym′ denotes the symmetric abundance of the dark matter in the absence of dark matter asymmetry, i.e., when YX − … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: gx versus the dark photon mass mAx . Right panel: gx versus the vacuum expectation value of the U(1)x Higgs field, vx. The shaded light-green regions in both panels indicate the parameter space of gx that yields sufficient secluded annihilation of the symmetric dark matter component, for dark photon masses in the range 20 MeV − 1 GeV. The kinetic mixing between U(1)x and the hypercharge gauge field is fi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A display of effective bounce actions S G.D. eff defined in Eq. (3.4) in Landau gauge (ξ = 0), along with S0 and S0 + S1 with different choices of ξ. From left to right, the models are (*),(a), (b) and (c) where the models are defined in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Analysis of gravitational wave power spectra for models (*), (a), (b), and (c) defined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Upper left panel: Parameter scan within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Exhibition of the dependence of the gravitational wave power spectrum for four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Individual gravitational wave source contributions for two benchmark models (*) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left Panel: Ratio |S1/S0| at Tp across (gx, λx) with vx = 1 GeV. The phase￾transition-completed region satisfies |S1/S0| < 1, indicating that next-to-leading corrections remain subdominant to the leading bounce action. Right Panel: Correlation between gravitational wav…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left Panel: Exhibition of the parameter space in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Plots of the gravitational wave power spectrum Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    sphaleron interactions partially convert the lepton asymmetry into baryon asymmetry near the temperature of the first-order phase transition

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    gauge-independent bubble nucleation dynamics which yields spectra also valid in the supercooled low-temperature regime with Tp/mAx ≪ 1

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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Supercool with PPO: Exploring Supercooled Phase Transitions via Reinforcement Learning

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PPO reinforcement learning accelerates identification of gravitational wave signals from supercooled phase transitions in a minimal dark U(1)_x sector compared to Monte Carlo sampling.

  2. Natural Supercooling and Reheating along Supersymmetric Flat Directions and Observable Gravitational Waves at the Einstein Telescope and the Cosmic Explorer

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Radiative barriers in SUSY flat directions enable supercooled PTs yielding Ω_GW h² up to ~3e-10 for M_λ̃/v_X in 0.05-0.23, with the hidden sector also reproducing Ω_CDM h²=0.12 for m_q ~30-800 keV.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 117 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  2. [2]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

    G. Agazieet al.[NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett.951, no.1, L8 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041- 8213/acdac6 [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.3847/2041- 2023

  3. [3]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals

    J. Antoniadiset al.[EPTA and InPTA:], Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 [arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 2023

  4. [4]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane and J. Askew,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.951, no.1, L6 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 [arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 2023

  5. [5]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Targeted Searches for Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

    N. Agarwal, G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Arzoumanian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. Becsy, L. Blecha and A. Brazier,et al.[arXiv:2508.16534 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Zheng, C

    Q. Zheng, C. M. F. Mingarelli, W. DeRocco, J. Nay, K. K. Boddy and J. A. Dror, [arXiv:2508.21582 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    S. Y. Khlebnikov and I. I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D56, 653-660 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.653 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701423 [hep-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.56.653 1997

  8. [8]

    Gravitational Wave Production At The End Of Inflation

    R. Easther, J. T. Giblin, Jr. and E. A. Lim, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 221301 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.221301 [arXiv:astro-ph/0612294 [astro-ph]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.221301 2007

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    Garcia-Bellido, D

    J. Garcia-Bellido, D. G. Figueroa and A. Sastre, Phys. Rev. D77, 043517 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.043517 [arXiv:0707.0839 [hep-ph]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. A. Kirzhnits, JETP Lett.15, 529-531 (1972)

    1972

  3. [12]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B177, 477-488 (1981) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90182-6

    1981 doi

  4. [13]

    A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D23, 876 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.876

    1981 doi

  5. [14]

    P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. D25, 2074 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.2074

    doi

  6. [15]

    F. C. Adams, Phys. Rev. D48, 2800-2805 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.2800 [arXiv:hep-ph/9302321 [hep-ph]]

    1993 doi arXiv

  7. [16]

    R. R. Parwani, Phys. Rev. D45, 4695 (1992) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D48, 5965 (1993)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.4695 [arXiv:hep-ph/9204216 [hep-ph]]

    1992 doi arXiv

  8. [17]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D47, 3546 (1993) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D50, 6662 (1994)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3546 [arXiv:hep-ph/9212235 [hep-ph]]. 34

    1993 doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros and F. Zwirner, Phys. Lett. B314, 206-216 (1993) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(93)90450-V [arXiv:hep-ph/9212248 [hep-ph]]

    1993 doi arXiv

  10. [19]

    Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9304284 [hep-ph]]

    M. Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9304284 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  11. [20]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade and H. Ramani, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.9, 787 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6268-0 [arXiv:1612.00466 [hep-ph]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    J. R. Espinosa and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D76, 076004 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.076004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0701145 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  13. [22]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D78, 123528 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.123528 [arXiv:0809.3215 [hep-ph]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  14. [23]

    Azevedo, P

    D. Azevedo, P. M. Ferreira, M. M. Muhlleitner, S. Patel, R. Santos and J. Wittbrodt, JHEP11, 091 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2018)091 [arXiv:1807.10322 [hep-ph]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Mohamadnejad, JHEP03, 188 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)188 [arXiv:2111.04342 [hep-ph]]

    A. Mohamadnejad, JHEP03, 188 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2022)188 [arXiv:2111.04342 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Biermann, M

    L. Biermann, M. M¨ uhlleitner and J. M¨ uller, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.5, 439 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11612-w [arXiv:2204.13425 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    W. Wang, W. L. Xu and J. M. Yang, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, no.9, 781 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04412-4 [arXiv:2209.11408 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  18. [27]

    Addazi, Mod

    A. Addazi, Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, no.08, 1750049 (2017) doi:10.1142/S0217732317500493 [arXiv:1607.08057 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  19. [28]

    Y. Zhu, J. Liu, R. Qin and L. Bian, Phys. Rev. D112, no.1, 015018 (2025) doi:10.1103/f4gr-hycg [arXiv:2503.19566 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  20. [29]

    M. Aoki, H. Goto and J. Kubo, Phys. Rev. D96, no.7, 075045 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.075045 [arXiv:1709.07572 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  21. [30]

    Pasechnik, M

    R. Pasechnik, M. Reichert, F. Sannino and Z. W. Wang, JHEP02, 159 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)159 [arXiv:2309.16755 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    Schwaller, Phys

    P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.18, 181101 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.181101 [arXiv:1504.07263 [hep-ph]]

    2015 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    Addazi and A

    A. Addazi and A. Marciano, Chin. Phys. C42, no.2, 023107 (2018) doi:10.1088/1674- 1137/42/2/023107 [arXiv:1703.03248 [hep-ph]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  24. [33]

    Fairbairn, E

    M. Fairbairn, E. Hardy and A. Wickens, JHEP07, 044 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)044 [arXiv:1901.11038 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    R. T. Co, K. Harigaya and A. Pierce, JHEP12, 099 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)099 [arXiv:2104.02077 [hep-ph]]. 35

    2021 doi

  26. [35]

    Borah, A

    D. Borah, A. Dasgupta and S. K. Kang, Phys. Rev. D104, no.6, 063501 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063501 [arXiv:2105.01007 [hep-ph]]

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    Abe and K

    T. Abe and K. Hashino, PTEP2024, no.6, 063B02 (2024) doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae087 [arXiv:2302.13510 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  28. [37]

    Imtiaz, Y

    B. Imtiaz, Y. F. Cai and Y. Wan, Eur. Phys. J. C79, no.1, 25 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6532-y [arXiv:1804.05835 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    A. Paul, U. Mukhopadhyay and D. Majumdar, JHEP05, 223 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)223 [arXiv:2010.03439 [hep-ph]]

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    Breitbach, J

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch and P. Schwaller, JCAP07, 007 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/07/007 [arXiv:1811.11175 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi arXiv

  31. [41]

    Freese and M

    K. Freese and M. W. Winkler, Phys. Rev. D106, no.10, 103523 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103523 [arXiv:2208.03330 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 doi

  32. [42]

    Bringmann, T

    T. Bringmann, T. E. Gonzalo, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo, JCAP05, 065 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/065 [arXiv:2311.06346 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 doi

  33. [43]

    Banik, Y

    A. Banik, Y. Cui, Y. D. Tsai and Y. Tsai, [arXiv:2412.16282 [hep-ph]]

  34. [44]

    Jaeckel, V

    J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D94, no.10, 103519 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.103519 [arXiv:1602.03901 [hep-ph]]

    2016 doi arXiv

  35. [45]

    S. P. Li and K. P. Xie, Phys. Rev. D108, no.5, 055018 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.055018 [arXiv:2307.01086 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  36. [46]

    Ghosh, A

    T. Ghosh, A. Ghoshal, H. K. Guo, F. Hajkarim, S. F. King, K. Sinha, X. Wang and G. White, JCAP05, 100 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/100 [arXiv:2307.02259 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2024 doi

  37. [47]

    Di Bari, D

    P. Di Bari, D. Marfatia and Y. L. Zhou, JHEP10, 193 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)193 [arXiv:2106.00025 [hep-ph]]

    2021 doi

  38. [48]

    Z. Chen, K. Ye and M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D107, no.9, 095027 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.095027 [arXiv:2303.11820 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  39. [49]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D110, no.4, 4 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043514 [arXiv:2305.04942 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  40. [50]

    Kanemura and S

    S. Kanemura and S. P. Li, JCAP03, 005 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/03/005 [arXiv:2308.16390 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  41. [51]

    Kierkla, N

    M. Kierkla, N. Ramberg, P. Schicho and D. Schmitt, [arXiv:2506.15496 [hep-ph]]. 36

  42. [52]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B245, 561-564 (1990) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90690-8

    1990 doi

  43. [53]

    Carena, J

    M. Carena, J. M. Moreno, M. Quiros, M. Seco and C. E. M. Wagner, Nucl. Phys. B599, 158-184 (2001) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00032-3 [arXiv:hep-ph/0011055 [hep-ph]]

    2001 doi arXiv

  44. [54]

    J. M. Cline, [arXiv:hep-ph/0609145 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  45. [55]

    G. A. White, Morgan & Claypool, 2016, ISBN 978-1-68174-456-8, 978-1-68174-457-5 doi:10.1088/978-1-6817-4457-5

    2016 doi

  46. [56]

    J. M. Cline, PoSTASI2018, 001 (2019) doi:10.22323/1.333.0001 [arXiv:1807.08749 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi

  47. [57]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2887-2890 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2887 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605288 [hep-ph]]

    1996 doi arXiv

  48. [58]

    Gurtler, E

    M. Gurtler, E. M. Ilgenfritz and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. D56, 3888-3895 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.3888 [arXiv:hep-lat/9704013 [hep-lat]]

    1997 doi arXiv

  49. [59]

    Csikor, Z

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 21-24 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.21 [arXiv:hep-ph/9809291 [hep-ph]]

    1999 doi arXiv

  50. [60]

    C. T. Hill, S. Pokorski and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D64, 105005 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.105005 [arXiv:hep-th/0104035 [hep-th]]

    2001 doi arXiv

  51. [61]

    Girmohanta, Y

    S. Girmohanta, Y. Nakai and Z. Zhang, [arXiv:2507.03747 [hep-ph]]

  52. [62]

    Patt and F

    B. Patt and F. Wilczek, [arXiv:hep-ph/0605188 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  53. [63]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196-198 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8

    1986 doi

  54. [64]

    Kors and P

    B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B586, 366-372 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.02.051 [arXiv:hep-ph/0402047 [hep-ph]]

    2004 doi arXiv

  55. [65]

    Feldman, Z

    D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D75, 115001 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.115001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0702123 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  56. [66]

    Cheung and T

    K. Cheung and T. C. Yuan, JHEP03, 120 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/03/120 [arXiv:hep-ph/0701107 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  57. [68]

    Aboubrahim, P

    A. Aboubrahim, P. Nath and Z. Y. Wang, JHEP12, 148 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2021)148 [arXiv:2108.05819 [hep-ph]]

    2021 doi

  58. [69]

    M. Du, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B834, 137454 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137454 [arXiv:2204.09024 [hep-ph]]. 37

    2022 doi

  59. [70]

    Feldman, B

    D. Feldman, B. Kors and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D75, 023503 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.023503 [arXiv:hep-ph/0610133 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  60. [71]

    W. Z. Feng and P. Nath, Phys. Lett. B731, 43-50 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.02.020 [arXiv:1312.1334 [hep-ph]]

    2014 doi arXiv

  61. [72]

    D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D79, 115016 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.115016 [arXiv:0901.4117 [hep-ph]]

    2009 doi arXiv

  62. [73]

    Cohen, D

    T. Cohen, D. J. Phalen, A. Pierce and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D82, 056001 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.056001 [arXiv:1005.1655 [hep-ph]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  63. [74]

    M. L. Graesser, I. M. Shoemaker and L. Vecchi, JHEP10, 110 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2011)110 [arXiv:1103.2771 [hep-ph]]

    2011 doi arXiv

  64. [75]

    M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B708, 112-118 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.01.032 [arXiv:1110.5452 [hep-ph]]

    2012 doi arXiv

  65. [76]

    W. Z. Feng, P. Nath and G. Peim, Phys. Rev. D85, 115016 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.115016 [arXiv:1204.5752 [hep-ph]]

    2012 doi arXiv

  66. [77]

    W. Z. Feng, A. Mazumdar and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D88, no.3, 036014 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.036014 [arXiv:1302.0012 [hep-ph]]

    2013 doi arXiv

  67. [78]

    W. Z. Feng and P. Nath, Mod. Phys. Lett. A32, no.5, 1740005 (2017) doi:10.1142/S0217732317400053 [arXiv:1610.01996 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  68. [79]

    Metaxas and E

    D. Metaxas and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D53, 836-843 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.836 [arXiv:hep-ph/9507381 [hep-ph]]

    1996 doi arXiv

  69. [80]

    Garny and T

    M. Garny and T. Konstandin, JHEP07, 189 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2012)189 [arXiv:1205.3392 [hep-ph]]

    2012 doi arXiv

  70. [81]

    Arunasalam and M

    S. Arunasalam and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP08, 138 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)138 [arXiv:2105.07588 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  71. [82]

    L¨ ofgren, M

    J. L¨ ofgren, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.25, 251801 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.251801 [arXiv:2112.05472 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  72. [83]

    Hirvonen, J

    J. Hirvonen, J. L¨ ofgren, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Schicho and T. V. I. Tenkanen, JHEP 07, 135 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)135 [arXiv:2112.08912 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  73. [84]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen and J. van de Vis, JHEP02, 234 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2024)234 [arXiv:2312.12413 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  74. [85]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.571, A1 (2014) doi:10.1051/0004- 6361/201321529 [arXiv:1303.5062 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2014 doi arXiv

  75. [86]

    L. Covi, E. Roulet and F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B384, 169-174 (1996) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(96)00817-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9605319 [hep-ph]]. 38

    1996 doi arXiv

  76. [87]

    J. A. Harvey and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D42, 3344-3349 (1990) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3344

    1990 doi

  77. [88]

    Komatsuet al.[WMAP], Astrophys

    E. Komatsuet al.[WMAP], Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 18 (2011) doi:10.1088/0067- 0049/192/2/18 [arXiv:1001.4538 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011 doi arXiv

  78. [89]

    Fabbrichesi, E

    M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli and G. Lanfranchi, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-62519-1 [arXiv:2005.01515 [hep-ph]]

    2005 doi

  79. [90]

    Aboubrahim, M

    A. Aboubrahim, M. M. Altakach, M. Klasen, P. Nath and Z. Y. Wang, JHEP03, 182 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2023)182 [arXiv:2212.01268 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  80. [91]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D111, no.12, 123007 (2025) doi:10.1103/79cb-rssl [arXiv:2501.14986 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  81. [92]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.[LISA], [arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.[LISA], [arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]]

    arXiv

  82. [93]

    Baker, J

    J. Baker, J. Bellovary, P. L. Bender, E. Berti, R. Caldwell, J. Camp, J. W. Conklin, N. Cornish, C. Cutler and R. DeRosa,et al.[arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]]

    1907 arXiv

  83. [94]

    Amaro-Seoane, S

    P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Aoudia, S. Babak, P. Binetruy, E. Berti, A. Bohe, C. Caprini, M. Colpi, N. J. Cornish and K. Danzmann,et al.GW Notes6, 4-110 (2013) [arXiv:1201.3621 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  84. [95]

    Grojean and G

    C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D75, 043507 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.043507 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607107 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  85. [96]

    Kawamura, T

    S. Kawamura, T. Nakamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, K. Tsubono, K. Numata, R. Takahashi, S. Nagano, T. Ishikawa and M. Musha,et al.Class. Quant. Grav.23, S125-S132 (2006) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/8/S17

    2006 doi

  86. [97]

    W. H. Ruan, Z. K. Guo, R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, no.17, 2050075 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0217751X2050075X [arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]]

    2020 doi

  87. [98]

    Luoet al.[TianQin], Class

    J. Luoet al.[TianQin], Class. Quant. Grav.33, no.3, 035010 (2016) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/33/3/035010 [arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2016 doi arXiv

  88. [99]

    Sesana, N

    A. Sesana, N. Korsakova, M. A. Sedda, V. Baibhav, E. Barausse, S. Barke, E. Berti, M. Bonetti, P. R. Capelo and C. Caprini,et al.Exper. Astron.51, no.3, 1333-1383 (2021) doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09709-9 [arXiv:1908.11391 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2021 doi

  89. [100]

    Hua and J

    B. Hua and J. Zhu, Comput. Phys. Commun.316, 109764 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2025.109764 [arXiv:2501.15236 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  90. [101]

    Sher, Phys

    M. Sher, Phys. Rept.179, 273-418 (1989) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(89)90061-6

    1989 doi

  91. [102]

    H. H. Patel and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP07, 029 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)029 [arXiv:1101.4665 [hep-ph]]. 39

    2011 doi arXiv

  92. [103]

    H. Bahl, M. Carena, A. Ireland and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP09, 153 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2024)153 [arXiv:2404.12439 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  93. [105]

    Athron, A

    P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C. T. Lu, L. Morris, L. Wu, Y. Wu and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.22, 221001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.221001 [arXiv:2306.17239 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  94. [106]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Chala, G. C. Dorsch, M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Kozaczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No and K. Rummukainen,et al.JCAP03, 024 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/024 [arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 doi

  95. [108]

    Bringmann, P

    T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, T. Konstandin, K. Schmidt-Hoberg and C. Tasillo, JCAP 11, 053 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/053 [arXiv:2306.09411 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 doi

  96. [109]

    Bai and M

    Y. Bai and M. Korwar, Phys. Rev. D105, no.9, 095015 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.095015 [arXiv:2109.14765 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  97. [110]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin, K. Schmitz and J. van de Vis, JCAP01, 072 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/01/072 [arXiv:2010.09744 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  98. [112]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore, JCAP05, 025 (2017) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/05/025 [arXiv:1703.08215 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  99. [113]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No and G. Servant, JCAP06, 028 (2010) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/06/028 [arXiv:1004.4187 [hep-ph]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  100. [115]

    W. Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis, JHEP02, 119 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2025)119 [arXiv:2411.13641 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  101. [116]

    Hindmarsh, Phys

    M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, no.7, 071301 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.071301 [arXiv:1608.04735 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  102. [117]

    Hindmarsh and M

    M. Hindmarsh and M. Hijazi, JCAP12, 062 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/062 [arXiv:1909.10040 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 doi

  103. [118]

    Gowling, M

    C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, D. C. Hooper and J. Torrado, JCAP04, 061 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/061 [arXiv:2209.13551 [astro-ph.CO]]. 40

    2023 doi

  104. [119]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.10, 103520 (2017) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D101, no.8, 089902 (2020)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103520 [arXiv:1704.05871 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 doi

  105. [120]

    R. G. Cai, S. J. Wang and Z. Y. Yuwen, Phys. Rev. D108, no.2, L021502 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.L021502 [arXiv:2305.00074 [gr-qc]]

    2023 doi

  106. [121]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D82, 063511 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.063511 [arXiv:1007.1218 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  107. [123]

    Caprini, M

    C. Caprini, M. Hindmarsh, S. Huber, T. Konstandin, J. Kozaczuk, G. Nardini, J. M. No, A. Petiteau, P. Schwaller and G. Servant,et al.JCAP04, 001 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2016/04/001 [arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi arXiv

  108. [124]

    D. J. Weir, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376, no.2114, 20170126 (2018) [erratum: Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A381, 20230212 (2023)] doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0126 [arXiv:1705.01783 [hep-ph]]

    2018 doi

  109. [125]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, A. Roper Pol, H. Rubira and I. Stomberg, JHEP 07, 217 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)217 [arXiv:2409.03651 [gr-qc]]. 41

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 18, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.