Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper argues that a two-phase-transition string-wall network produces a gravitational-wave spectrum spanning pulsar-timing to ground-based bands, can explain the nHz background, and will be decisively tested by LISA's higher-frequency m

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:28 UTC pith:FRFE4UGZ

load-bearing objection Solid multi-band SGWB analysis of a hybrid defect model, but the 'LISA will decisively test' claim rests on an unverified spectral template whose O(1) uncertainties are not propagated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.19590 v1 pith:FRFE4UGZ submitted 2025-11-24 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ph

Searching Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background Landscape Across Frequency Bands

Yunjia Bao , Tore Boybeyi , Vuk Mandic , Lian-Tao Wang This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords stochastic gravitational wave backgroundcosmic stringsdomain wallshybrid topological defectspulsar timing arraysLISA sensitivitymulti-band gravitational wave astronomyBayesian parameter estimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to show that the stochastic gravitational-wave background can now be studied across many decades of frequency at once, and uses a specific new-physics source to make the point. The source is a hybrid network of cosmic strings and domain walls produced by two phase transitions separated by inflation; the model generates a broad spectrum with a domain-wall peak whose frequency and amplitude are set by the re-entry Hubble scale. The authors show this model can fit the low-frequency background seen by pulsar timing arrays, and that the same spectrum extends to frequencies LISA and third-generation ground-based detectors will probe, so those detectors can confirm or rule out the interpretation. They develop a Bayesian pipeline that combines current exclusions, the observed signal, and projected sensitivities, and they compare the new-physics interpretation with the standard supermassive-black-hole-binary foreground.

Core claim

For walls bounded by gauge cosmic strings, the central result is that LISA's projected sensitivity covers almost the entire pulsar-timing-array best-fit region in the plane of wall tension versus re-entry Hubble scale; a LISA measurement of the spectrum's high-frequency tail would therefore decisively test the string-wall interpretation of the nHz background. For walls bounded by global strings, LISA covers only part of the best-fit region, but a joint LISA-plus-Cosmic-Explorer measurement could map the peak frequency, peak amplitude, and the ultraviolet knee that encodes the string VEV, determining all three model parameters and the string tension without detecting the string component dire

What carries the argument

The central object is a hybrid topological-defect network: cosmic strings created in a first phase transition are inflated outside the horizon; when they re-enter, they bound domain walls created in a second phase transition. Because inflation broke the scaling relation, the walls grow large and dominate, producing a gravitational-wave spectrum that is a broken power law (a rise to a peak, then a falloff) superposed on an almost flat string background. The re-entry Hubble scale H_re sets the peak frequency and amplitude, the wall tension sigma sets the overall amplitude, and, in the global-string case, the vacuum expectation value v_2 sets a UV knee frequency via Nambu-Goldstone emission. Th

Load-bearing premise

The piecewise gravitational-wave spectra for the string-wall network are adopted from scaling arguments rather than full simulations; if the true wall peak amplitude or high-frequency tails differ by order-one factors, the nHz best-fit region and the LISA-test conclusion shift.

What would settle it

Use LISA to measure the stochastic background between roughly 0.1 mHz and 0.1 Hz; if, for the parameters that fit the nHz signal, no peak or knee appears at the predicted frequencies and amplitudes, or the tail falls as f^-3 instead of f^-1, the string-wall interpretation is falsified. Cross-check by fitting the three-parameter template simultaneously to pulsar-timing, LISA, and Cosmic Explorer data and checking that the inferred parameters agree across bands.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If LISA observes the predicted peak and high-frequency tail for the gauge-string scenario, the string-wall interpretation of the nHz background is confirmed; a null LISA detection at the projected sensitivity would rule it out for the best-fit region.
  • A joint detection at LISA and Cosmic Explorer would pin down the re-entry Hubble scale, wall tension, and string VEV, effectively turning the stochastic background into a measurement of inflationary dynamics and the symmetry-breaking scale.
  • A positive Cosmic Explorer detection would favor walls bounded by gauge strings over those bounded by global strings, because global-string spectra are more suppressed at high frequencies.
  • Even if the nHz signal is entirely astrophysical, the model predicts broad correlated features at higher frequencies, so multi-band null and positive results together discriminate cosmological from astrophysical origins.
  • The Delta-Neff bound already constrains high-frequency portions of the spectrum; future detectors will probe below that bound, making strain-based searches the frontier for such models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If LISA pinpoints the wall peak, the inferred H_re constrains the number of inflationary e-foldings and the Kibble-Zurek correlation length; the paper leaves this cosmological translation unexplored.
  • The small Bayes factor for the global-string model without an SMBHB foreground suggests that a future multi-band analysis can treat the foreground jointly; a LISA null detection could be used to place a lower bound on the SMBHB contribution.
  • The pipeline generalizes: the same template-to-sensitivity mapping can be applied to other cosmological backgrounds (e.g., thermal phase transitions) to forecast how much of their parameter space future detectors will cover.
  • A concrete next calculation would be to forecast how many years of LISA data (or what SNR threshold) are needed to separate the gauge-string from the global-string scenario at a given confidence, rather than the fixed 3-year, SNR=2 projections used here.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new physics scenario—hybrid topological defects formed in a two-step phase transition separated by inflation—and studies its stochastic gravitational wave background across frequency bands. The authors build a Bayesian pipeline that combines current PTA (NANOGrav 15yr), LIGO O3 data, and projected LISA/CE sensitivities. They find that the scenario can explain the NANOGrav signal, with Bayes factors modestly favoring the new physics interpretation over an SMBHB-only foreground, and claim that LISA can decisively test the string-wall interpretation. The paper also develops sensitivity curves for LISA and CE and presents exclusion contours in the parameter space of the wall tension, re-entry Hubble scale, and string-forming VEV.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a useful and timely demonstration of multi-band SGWB searches as a probe of early-universe particle physics. The paper provides a transparent Bayesian framework that reuses public codes (ptarcade, ENTERPRISE) and makes falsifiable projections for LISA, CE, and ET. The novelty lies in applying this pipeline to a specific hybrid-defect model and in identifying concrete parameter regions where future detectors would distinguish this model from astrophysical foregrounds. The main value is as a proof-of-concept for multi-band SGWB landscape mapping, provided the theoretical template uncertainties are handled honestly.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II A, Eq. (1); Section IV] The central projection that LISA can 'decisively test' the string-wall interpretation rests on the wall spectrum template from Ref. [81], which the paper itself describes in Section II A as 'based largely on scaling arguments' with 'detailed simulations needed for precise predictions.' No theory uncertainty is propagated into the posterior credible regions or the projected sensitivity contours. In Scenario 1, the LISA-band amplitude from Eq. (1) scales as sqrt(σ H_re) at fixed f; an O(1) normalization change or a steepening of the f^{-1} tail (e.g., f^{-1}→f^{-2}) would rescale the LISA-band amplitude and shift the NANOGrav best-fit region along the σ∝H_re degeneracy. A factor ~3 downward normalization or steeper tail would move a substantial fraction of the 68% region below LISA's reach, invalidating the 'decisive' wording. Please propagate a theory envelope or recompute the coverage wi
  2. [Section III, Eq. (7); Section IV] The projected sensitivity contours are constructed by setting Ωhat(f_k)=0 in Eq. (7), yielding a projected upper limit/exclusion under a null measurement. The text in Section IV describes these as 'LISA sensitivity covers almost entirely the best-fit region' and 'decisively test,' which conflates exclusion with detection. If the intended claim is that LISA will detect the signal, the appropriate statistic is the matched-filter SNR of the predicted spectrum (Eq. S28) evaluated at the best-fit parameters; if the intended claim is that a null LISA observation would rule out the model, this should be stated explicitly and the contours labeled accordingly.
  3. [Section III, priors] The prior on log10 H_re spans 34 decades (U(-34,0)) with no prior derived from inflation e-folds or the Kibble-Zurek correlation length, as acknowledged in Section II. With such a wide prior, the posterior credible regions and Bayes factors are strongly volume-dominated. The paper presents the blue/red regions as 'best-fit' regions, but they are posterior credible intervals under an essentially uninformative prior, not likelihood peaks. Please clarify this and, ideally, show the profile likelihood or a prior-robustness check to demonstrate that the LISA-coverage conclusion is not an artifact of the prior volume.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title, Section II A] Several formatting glitches remain: 'L VK' appears with an extra space, and Section II A contains 'W alls' and 'V EV' instead of 'Walls' and 'VEV.' These should be corrected.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S4] There are two figures both labeled 'FIG. S4' with captions 'New Physics Scenario 1' and 'New Physics Scenario 2.' Renumber the figures sequentially throughout the appendix.
  3. [Section SIII B, Eq. (S50)] The function L(f) is used in Eq. (S50) before it is defined in Eq. (S51). Reorder the definitions or introduce L(f) explicitly before first use.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that panel (a) shows joint posteriors 'marginalized over SMBHB parameters,' but panel (a) appears to show the wall+string model both with and without SMBHB. Clarify how the SMBHB parameters are treated in each case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the LISA projection is a conditional extrapolation from a self-cited but explicitly qualified spectral template.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: adopt the string-wall GW spectra from Ref. [81] (Bao, Harigaya, Wang, overlapping with two present authors), fit the model parameters (log10 H_re, log10 v2, log10 sigma) to NANOGrav data with a Bayesian pipeline, and then evaluate the same spectral template at LISA/CE frequencies to project sensitivity. The only self-citation is Ref. [81], which supplies the template, but the paper explicitly qualifies it: 'The GW spectrum obtained in Ref. [81] is based largely on scaling arguments. Although detailed simulations are needed for precise predictions, the results should remain qualitatively unchanged.' This is not an attempt to prove the model by self-citation; it is an adopted model assumption. The LISA-band signal is obtained by evaluating the fixed template at higher frequencies using parameters fit to nHz data. That is an extrapolation, not a tautology: the NANOGrav fit does not by construction set the mHz amplitude or the UV knee, and the high-frequency power laws (f^{-1}, f^{-3}) and the knee are fixed model features rather than fitted outputs renamed as predictions. The 'LISA can decisively test' claim is explicitly conditional on the template being correct; the acknowledged O(1) theory uncertainty in the template is a robustness/correctness risk, not circularity. No equation reduces to its input, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the pipeline, Bayes-factor analysis, and sensitivity calculations are independent of the cited spectrum. Hence no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or fundamental entities are introduced by this paper; the hybrid defect network is adopted from Ref. [81]. The model parameters (H_re, v2, σ) are free parameters with broad priors, and the theoretical templates carry several fixed simulation-derived constants. The central load-bearing inputs are the spectral templates and the free-parameter treatment of H_re.

free parameters (6)
  • H_re (re-entry Hubble scale) = Posterior constrained; best-fit log10(H_re/GeV) ≈ -22.7 (+3.8/-3.7) for gauge, -21.5 (+2.8/-2.9) for global (Fig. 1/S4)
    Controls wall-peak frequency and amplitude; given a wide log-uniform prior U(-34,0) because it is assumed to be a free parameter from inflationary dynamics.
  • v_2 (VEV of string-forming scalar) = Posterior constrained; log10(v2/GeV) ≈ 9.7 (+3.2/-3.2) for gauge, 10.7 (+4.8/-4.9) for global (Fig. 1/S4)
    Sets string tension (μ=πv2^2) and the UV knee frequency; prior U(8,16.5).
  • σ (domain wall tension) = Posterior constrained; log10(σ/GeV^3) ≈ 8.2 (+6.3/-6.1) for gauge (Fig. 1a)
    Sets wall GW amplitude and decay rate; prior U(-5,34).
  • log10 A_SMBHB, γ_SMBHB = Posterior ≈ -15.7 ± 0.5 and 4.7 ± 0.3 for composite models (S4/S5)
    SMBHB foreground parameters in the composite models; informative prior from NANOGrav population models (Eq. S53).
  • Gauge string constants (F, α_r, ξ_r, A_r, Γ) = F=0.1, α_r=0.33, ξ_r=0.271, A_r=0.054, Γ=50
    Fixed simulation-derived constants in the gauge string template (S46-S47); not marginalized, so the v2 exclusion inherits their uncertainty.
  • Global string constants (α, ξ) = α=0.1, ξ=4
    Fixed constants in the global string template (S50-S51), adopted from Ref. [54].
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption Wall+string GW spectra from Ref. [81] (Eqs. 3.32/4.21, reproduced here as Eqs. 1-3) are accurate at the level needed for exclusions and sensitivity projections.
    The entire analysis adopts the scaling-argument spectrum without simulation validation; the paper states 'detailed simulations are needed' but keeps the template.
  • ad hoc to paper H_re can be treated as a free parameter with a wide log-uniform prior spanning 34 decades, unconstrained by the Kibble-Zurek correlation length or inflation e-folds.
    This flexibility lets the wall peak sit at arbitrary frequencies, which is what allows the model to fit NANOGrav; a predictive theory for H_re would remove this freedom.
  • domain assumption The gauge string spectrum of Ref. [49] (Eqs. S45-S48) with the quoted constants represents the hybrid network's string component.
    Used for the v2 exclusions and the flat string part of the spectrum; the paper assumes 'up to O(1) difference' the string part is like pure strings.
  • domain assumption The global string spectrum modified from Ref. [54] (Eq. S50) and the NGB emission rate (k_NGB) capture the UV knee and suppression of the global-string scenario.
    Sets the UV power-law turnover in Scenario 2; the modification drops higher-harmonic effects and the effective-d.o.f. correction for convenience.
  • domain assumption LISA sensitivity can be constructed from A/E TDI channels with perfectly known instrumental noise, ignoring the white-dwarf confusion foreground.
    Stated explicitly in SII; residual confusion could raise the low-frequency floor and change the LISA reach.
  • domain assumption The SMBHB foreground prior from NANOGrav population models (Eq. S53) is the correct informed prior for the composite Bayes-factor analysis.
    Used in composite models and Bayes factors; if the population model is biased, the model comparison shifts.
  • domain assumption The ΔN_eff constraint h^2 Ω_GW ≲ 1.7×10^-6 (Planck/BBN) applies to the integrated SGWB energy density.
    Standard cosmological bound, applied to all models in the analysis.
  • domain assumption The one-scale scaling solution and loop-production parameters for cosmic strings apply to the hybrid network's string-mode oscillations.
    The paper assumes the string part is parametrically similar to pure cosmic strings, with O(1) differences allowed.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21880 in / 17245 out tokens · 160373 ms · 2026-08-03T20:28:55.108700+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave (GW) astrophysics is entering a multi-band era with upcoming GW detectors, enabling detailed mapping of the stochastic GW background across vast frequencies. We highlight this potential via a new physics scenario: hybrid topological defects from a two-step phase transition separated by inflation. We develop a general pipeline to analyze experimental exclusions and apply it to this model. The model offers a possible explanation of the pulsar timing array signal at low frequencies, and future experiments (LISA/Cosmic Explorer/Einstein Telescope) will confirm or rule it out via the higher-frequency probes, showcasing the power of multi-band constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.19590 by Lian-Tao Wang, Tore Boybeyi, Vuk Mandic, Yunjia Bao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Left column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Prospects for multi-messenger discovery of the gravitational-wave background anisotropies via cross-correlation with galaxies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    New simulations show that cross-correlating gravitational wave background anisotropies with galaxy distributions can enable discovery at angular scales of 4-6 degrees with next-generation observatories.

  2. Magnetic monopoles and high frequency gravitational waves from quasi-stable strings

    hep-ph 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0

    SO(10) breaking through flipped SU(5) or Pati-Salam subgroups can produce GUT monopoles from merging monopole-antimonopole pairs, while the intervening quasi-stable strings emit gravitational waves from Hz to kHz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references · 84 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Nature Astron.3, 35 (2019), arXiv:1811.08079 [gr-qc]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Nature Astron.3, 35 (2019), arXiv:1811.08079 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. Caballero, J. Yuan, Y. Xu,et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Antoniadiset al., Mon

    J. Antoniadiset al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.510, 4873 (2022), arXiv:2201.03980 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 121101 (2017), arXiv:1612.02029 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), 2101.12130

    arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), 10.48550/ARXIV.2508.20721, arXiv:2508.20721 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20721 2025

  11. [11]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2510.26848 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Antoniadis, S

    J. Antoniadis, S. Babak, A.-S. B. Nielsen, C. Bassa, A. Berthereau, M. Bonetti, E. Bortolas, P. Brook, M. Burgay, R. Caballero,et al., Astron. Astrophys.678, A48 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane, J. Askew,et al., ApJ951, L6 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Evans, J

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, M. Evans, J. Harms, and S. Vitale (LIGO Scientific), Exploring the Sensitivity of Next Generation Gravi- tational Wave Detectors, Tech. Rep. LIGO-P1600143 (LIGO, 2017) arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Punturoet al., Class

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

    2010

  17. [17]

    Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    G. Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    Weltmanet al., Publ

    A. Weltmanet al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e002 (2020), arXiv:1810.02680 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Bakeret al., (2019), arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]

    J. Bakeret al., (2019), arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Caldwellet al., Bull

    R. Caldwellet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 67 (2019), arXiv:1903.04657 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Kawamuraet al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    S. Kawamuraet al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Isoyama, H

    S. Isoyama, H. Nakano, and T. Nakamura, PTEP2018, 073E01 (2018), arXiv:1802.06977 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 2435 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0512039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  25. [25]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 4887 (2006), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7361 (2006)]

    2006

  26. [26]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Meiet al.(TianQin), PTEP2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    J. Meiet al.(TianQin), PTEP2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Z. Luo, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, W. Hu, and G. Jin, PTEP 2021, 05A108 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.46, 1169 (1981), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 46, 1496 (1981)]

    1981

  31. [31]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D23, 852 (1981)

    1981

  32. [32]

    C. J. Hogan and M. J. Rees, Nature311, 109 (1984)

    1984

  33. [33]

    Sakellariadou, Phys

    M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D42, 354 (1990), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 43, 4150 (1991)]

    1990

  34. [34]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3761 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0004075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    Siemens, V

    X. Siemens, V. Mandic, and J. Creighton, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 111101 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0610920

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  36. [36]

    Lorenz, C

    L. Lorenz, C. Ringeval, and M. Sakellariadou, JCAP 10, 003 (2010), arXiv:1006.0931 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  37. [37]

    Olmez, V

    S. Olmez, V. Mandic, and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104028 (2010), arXiv:1004.0890 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  38. [38]

    Sousa and P

    L. Sousa and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D88, 023516 (2013), arXiv:1304.2445 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 131101 (2014), arXiv:1310.2384 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado and K. D. Olum, Phys. Rev. D96, 104046 (2017), arXiv:1709.02693 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Ringeval and T

    C. Ringeval and T. Suyama, JCAP12, 027 (2017), arXiv:1709.03845 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Y. Cui, M. Lewicki, D. E. Morrissey, and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D97, 123505 (2018), arXiv:1711.03104 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D97, 102002 (2018), arXiv:1712.01168 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Y. Cui, M. Lewicki, D. E. Morrissey, and J. D. Wells, JHEP01, 081 (2019), arXiv:1808.08968 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Y. Cui, M. Lewicki, and D. E. Morrissey, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 211302 (2020), arXiv:1912.08832 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Auclairet al., JCAP04, 034 (2020), arXiv:1909.00819 [astro-ph.CO]

    P. Auclairet al., JCAP04, 034 (2020), arXiv:1909.00819 [astro-ph.CO]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Blasi, V

    S. Blasi, V. Brdar, and K. Schmitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041305 (2021), arXiv:2009.06607 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Ellis and M

    J. Ellis and M. Lewicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 041304 (2021), arXiv:2009.06555 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    Sousa, P

    L. Sousa, P. P. Avelino, and G. S. F. Guedes, Phys. Rev. D101, 103508 (2020), arXiv:2002.01079 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    D. G. Figueroa, M. Hindmarsh, J. Lizarraga, and J. Urrestilla, Phys. Rev. D102, 103516 (2020), arXiv:2007.03337 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    R. T. Co, D. Dunsky, N. Fernandez, A. Ghalsasi, L. J. Hall, K. Harigaya, and J. Shelton, JHEP09, 116 (2022), arXiv:2108.09299 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Gorghetto, E

    M. Gorghetto, E. Hardy, and H. Nicolaescu, JCAP06, 034 (2021), arXiv:2101.11007 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Buchmuller, V

    W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, and K. Schmitz, JCAP 12, 006 (2021), arXiv:2107.04578 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Chang and Y

    C.-F. Chang and Y. Cui, JHEP03, 114 (2022), arXiv:2106.09746 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Boileau, A

    G. Boileau, A. C. Jenkins, M. Sakellariadou, R. Meyer, and N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D105, 023510 (2022), arXiv:2109.06552 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Gouttenoire, G

    Y. Gouttenoire, G. Servant, and P. Simakachorn, (2021), arXiv:2108.10328 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Gouttenoire, G

    Y. Gouttenoire, G. Servant, and P. Simakachorn, (2021), arXiv:2111.01150 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Ferrer, A

    F. Ferrer, A. Ghoshal, and M. Lewicki, JHEP09, 036 (2023), arXiv:2304.02636 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Auclair, S

    P. Auclair, S. Babak, H. Quelquejay Leclere, and D. A. Steer, Phys. Rev. D108, 043519 (2023), arXiv:2305.11653 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Baeza-Ballesteros, E

    J. Baeza-Ballesteros, E. J. Copeland, D. G. Figueroa, and J. Lizarraga, Phys. Rev. D110, 043522 (2024), arXiv:2308.08456 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    M. A. Fedderke, J. Huang, and N. Siemonsen, (2025), arXiv:2503.03116 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Vachaspati and A

    T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D31, 3052 (1985)

    1985

  63. [63]

    Gleiser and R

    M. Gleiser and R. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5497 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807260

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  64. [64]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP 05, 032 (2010), arXiv:1002.1555 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  65. [65]

    Hiramatsu, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Saikawa, JCAP09, 008 (2011), arXiv:1102.5628 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  67. [67]

    Kamada and M

    A. Kamada and M. Yamada, JCAP10, 021 (2015), arXiv:1505.01167 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  68. [68]

    Nakayama, F

    K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi, and N. Yokozaki, Phys. Lett. B770, 500 (2017), arXiv:1612.08327 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompin- eve, JCAP02, 001 (2023), arXiv:2204.04228 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Bai, T.-K

    Y. Bai, T.-K. Chen, and M. Korwar, JHEP12, 194 (2023), arXiv:2306.17160 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Ge, (2023), arXiv:2307.08185 [gr-qc]

    S. Ge, (2023), arXiv:2307.08185 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    Kitajima, J

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Phys. Lett. B851, 138586 (2024), arXiv:2306.17146 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    An and C

    H. An and C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D109, 123508 (2024), arXiv:2304.02361 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Martin and A

    X. Martin and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D55, 6054 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9612008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  75. [75]

    Babichev, V

    E. Babichev, V. Dokuchaev, and M. Kachelriess, Phys. Rev. D71, 044028 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411794

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  76. [76]

    D. I. Dunsky, A. Ghoshal, H. Murayama, Y. Sakaki- hara, and G. White, Phys. Rev. D106, 075030 (2022), arXiv:2111.08750 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Lazarides, R

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji, and Q. Shafi, JCAP08, 042 (2022), arXiv:2203.11204 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Roshan and G

    R. Roshan and G. White, (2024), arXiv:2401.04388 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Chitose, M

    A. Chitose, M. Ibe, Y. Nakayama, S. Shirai, and K. Watanabe, JHEP04, 068 (2024), arXiv:2312.15662 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Maji and Q

    R. Maji and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D111, 075027 (2025), arXiv:2502.10135 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.