arxiv: 2604.19197 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

CP-violating multi-field phase transitions and gravitational waves in a hidden NJL sector

Chang-Xin Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph

keywords NJL modelfirst-order phase transitiongravitational wavesCP violationdomain wallshidden sectorstochastic background

0 comments

The pith

Rapid phase transitions in a hidden NJL sector suppress gravitational wave signals below future detector reach while an energy bias collapses domain walls promptly.

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

The paper studies first-order phase transitions in an extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with three fermion flavors that includes a CP-violating six-fermion interaction, an explicit mass term breaking chiral symmetry, and eight-fermion operators. A multi-field analysis of tunneling reveals a curved path in field space caused by vacuum misalignment between the competing vacua, along with a spatially varying CP-violating background inside the bubble wall. The model produces an intrinsically high transition rate of beta over H around 10,000, which strongly damps the resulting stochastic gravitational wave background to levels below the sensitivity of planned space-based interferometers. The explicit mass term also generates an energy difference that drives quick collapse of any transient domain walls, preserving cosmological consistency.

Core claim

The central claim is that the intrinsically rapid transition rate characteristic of the NJL framework, with β/H ∼ O(10^4) in the considered regions, produces strong suppression of gravitational wave production so that the predicted stochastic background lies well below projected sensitivities of future detectors; simultaneously, the explicit symmetry-breaking mass creates an energy bias between vacua that triggers prompt collapse of transient domain walls and thereby ensures the cosmological viability of the setup.

What carries the argument

Multi-field tunneling dynamics driven by vacuum misalignment from the interplay of CP violation and explicit chiral symmetry breaking, which produces a curved tunneling path and the rapid β/H rate.

If this is right

The stochastic gravitational wave background remains well below the reach of future space-based interferometers.
Transient domain wall networks collapse promptly due to the vacuum energy bias and do not disrupt cosmology.
The bubble wall carries a spatially varying CP-violating phase generated by the curved tunneling path.
The eight-fermion operators prevent vacuum instabilities that would otherwise invalidate the model.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Analogous rapid transitions could appear in other strongly coupled hidden sectors and would likewise produce undetectable gravitational wave signals.
Collider searches for composite states or new interactions could provide independent tests of the hidden NJL parameters.
The curved tunneling path suggests that CP-violating effects might leave imprints in the particle spectra produced during the transition.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the eight-fermion operators stabilize the vacuum and that the transition rate reaches β/H ∼ O(10^4) in the parameter regions considered.

What would settle it

A computation of the bubble nucleation rate in the same parameter space that yields β/H substantially below 10,000, or a future detection of a stochastic gravitational wave background whose amplitude matches expectations for a slower transition, would falsify the suppression result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19197 by Chang-Xin Liu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2: Effect of explicit chiral symmetry breaking on the effective potential. (a, c) Chiral limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3: Evolution of the effective potential in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Quantitative evolution of vacuum energies and corresponding cross-sectional profiles. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Radial bubble profiles and the potential mapping for the NJL model. The fixed parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: The temperature dependence of the normalized three-dimensional Euclidean action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: The temperature dependence of the normalized tunneling action [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Parameter scan results of the viable parameter space yielding a FOPT. Panel (a) illustrates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Predicted SGWB spectra Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We investigate the dynamics of a cosmological first-order phase transition (FOPT) and the associated stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) in a hidden strongly coupled sector described by an extended Nambu--Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model with $N_f = 3$ fermion flavors. The model incorporates a CP-violating six-fermion 't Hooft interaction, an explicit chiral symmetry breaking mass term, and chirally symmetric eight-fermion operators that stabilize the vacuum. We perform a multi-field analysis of the tunneling dynamics, going beyond conventional single-field approximations. The interplay between explicit symmetry breaking and CP violation induces a vacuum misalignment, resulting in a curved tunneling path and a spatially varying CP-violating background across the bubble wall. Furthermore, the intrinsically rapid transition rate characteristic of the NJL framework ($\beta/H \sim \mathcal{O}(10^4)$ in the parameter regions considered) leads to a strong suppression of gravitational wave production. As a result, the predicted SGWB remains well below the projected sensitivities of future space-based interferometers. Finally, the explicit symmetry breaking mass introduces a crucial energy bias between competing vacua, triggering the prompt collapse of transient domain wall configurations and thereby ensuring the cosmological viability of the model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This NJL paper adds a concrete multi-field setup with CP violation that claims fast transitions suppress GWs and explicit breaking kills domain walls, but the key rate number is asserted without visible bounce support.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this paper builds an extended NJL model with three flavors, a CP-violating six-fermion term, explicit chiral breaking, and eight-fermion stabilizers, then tracks multi-field tunneling and the resulting gravitational waves. The curved bounce path from vacuum misalignment produces a bubble wall with varying CP phase, and the explicit mass biases the vacua so domain walls collapse fast enough to stay cosmologically safe. That combination is the actual new element beyond single-field NJL studies. The model construction and the qualitative picture of how CP violation and explicit breaking interact are handled cleanly. The eight-fermion terms are used sensibly to keep the potential stable, and the domain-wall fix is a standard move applied here without extra complications. The paper does a reasonable job showing why this hidden-sector setup matters for early-universe signals. The soft spot is the central claim that β/H reaches O(10^4) and wipes out any detectable SGWB. The abstract states this rate is characteristic of the NJL framework in the scanned regions and therefore suppresses the signal below future interferometer reach, but no explicit Euclidean action values, bounce profiles, or d(S_E/T)/dT numbers appear for the curved multi-field path. If the path curvature or modest changes in the eight-fermion couplings raise the action, the rate drops and the suppression weakens. The stress-test concern lands because the result is presented as following directly from the framework rather than from displayed calculations. The free parameters (six-fermion strength, explicit mass, eight-fermion couplings) are scanned, yet the robustness of the rate against those variations is not shown in the provided summary. This work is for people already working on hidden-sector phase transitions and gravitational waves from strong dynamics. A reader looking for a specific example of multi-field CP-violating tunneling in NJL will find the setup useful even if the GW numbers need checking. It shows clear engagement with the literature on domain walls and tunneling and is not internally contradictory. I would send it to peer review so referees can verify the bounce numerics and parameter dependence in detail.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates first-order phase transitions and associated stochastic gravitational waves in an extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model with N_f=3, incorporating a CP-violating six-fermion 't Hooft term, explicit chiral symmetry breaking mass, and stabilizing eight-fermion operators. It performs a multi-field tunneling analysis revealing a curved bounce path from vacuum misalignment, asserts an intrinsically rapid transition rate β/H ∼ O(10^4) that strongly suppresses the SGWB below future interferometer sensitivities, and argues that the explicit breaking mass bias ensures prompt domain wall collapse for cosmological viability.

Significance. If the multi-field bounce calculations and resulting β/H values hold, the work provides a concrete illustration of how strong dynamics plus CP violation and explicit breaking can yield fast, GW-suppressed transitions while resolving domain wall issues, with potential implications for hidden-sector model building and GW phenomenology constraints.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and §4 (tunneling dynamics)] Abstract and tunneling section: the central claim that β/H ∼ O(10^4) follows from the NJL framework and leads to strong SGWB suppression is not supported by any explicit numerical values, plots, or tabulations of the multi-field Euclidean bounce action S_E, the bounce profile, or d(S_E/T)/dT in the presence of the CP-violating six-fermion term and eight-fermion stabilizers; without these the suppression conclusion cannot be verified.
[§3 (effective potential)] §3 (effective potential): the assertion that eight-fermion operators stabilize the vacuum and enable the rapid transition rate is stated but lacks a quantitative scan showing how O(1) variations in their coefficients affect S_E or shift β/H below 10^3, which would remove the claimed suppression.

minor comments (2)

[§2 (model definition)] The multi-field bounce path curvature is described qualitatively but the notation for the CP-violating phase and explicit mass term should be defined with explicit Lagrangian expressions to facilitate reproduction.
[§4] No comparison is made to single-field approximations or standard NJL tunneling results in the literature; adding such a benchmark would clarify the impact of the curved path.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the two major comments point by point below, agreeing that additional explicit numerical support will strengthen the presentation of the tunneling results and vacuum stabilization.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and §4 (tunneling dynamics): the central claim that β/H ∼ O(10^4) follows from the NJL framework and leads to strong SGWB suppression is not supported by any explicit numerical values, plots, or tabulations of the multi-field Euclidean bounce action S_E, the bounce profile, or d(S_E/T)/dT in the presence of the CP-violating six-fermion term and eight-fermion stabilizers; without these the suppression conclusion cannot be verified.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit numerical support for the quoted β/H value. The order-of-magnitude result follows from our multi-field bounce calculations in the NJL framework, but the current text does not tabulate S_E, show profiles, or report d(S_E/T)/dT. We will revise §4 (and update the abstract if needed) to include benchmark values of the Euclidean action, representative bounce profiles, and the temperature derivative for the parameter points used, allowing direct verification of the rapid transition rate and SGWB suppression. revision: yes
Referee: §3 (effective potential): the assertion that eight-fermion operators stabilize the vacuum and enable the rapid transition rate is stated but lacks a quantitative scan showing how O(1) variations in their coefficients affect S_E or shift β/H below 10^3, which would remove the claimed suppression.

Authors: The eight-fermion operators are included to ensure the potential remains bounded and the broken minima exist in the presence of the six-fermion CP-violating term. While the manuscript demonstrates vacuum stability through the existence of these minima, it does not contain a scan over O(1) coefficient variations. We will add a brief quantitative discussion (or small table/figure) in §3 showing the effect of varying the eight-fermion coefficients by O(1) factors on S_E and confirming that β/H remains ≳ 10^3 in the relevant regions, thereby preserving the suppression conclusion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: transition rate and GW suppression follow from explicit multi-field bounce calculation in the extended NJL potential

full rationale

The abstract and skeptic summary indicate that β/H ∼ O(10^4) is obtained by scanning the model's parameters (including eight-fermion stabilizers) and performing the multi-field Euclidean bounce analysis on the effective potential that includes the CP-violating six-fermion term and explicit breaking mass. The GW suppression is then a direct consequence of the standard SGWB amplitude formulas that depend on β/H, α, and v_w; these formulas are not fitted to the output spectrum. No equation reduces the claimed rate to a tautological redefinition of the input parameters, and the domain-wall collapse follows from the energy bias introduced by the explicit mass term. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks rather than closing on itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several free parameters controlling interaction strengths and on standard assumptions of effective field theory for strong dynamics; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)

strength of six-fermion 't Hooft interaction
Sets the level of CP violation and vacuum misalignment; value chosen to produce the described curved tunneling path.
explicit chiral symmetry breaking mass term
Provides the energy bias between vacua; value chosen to trigger domain wall collapse.
couplings of eight-fermion operators
Stabilize the vacuum against instabilities; values chosen to make the model consistent.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The NJL model provides a valid effective description of the hidden strong sector at the relevant energy scales.
Invoked to justify the use of the extended NJL Lagrangian for the phase transition dynamics.
standard math Multi-field bounce solutions can be reliably computed to determine the tunneling path and rate.
Standard assumption in multi-field first-order phase transition calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5522 in / 1551 out tokens · 63015 ms · 2026-05-10T02:37:30.618923+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D30, 272 (1984)

1984
[2]

Grojean and G

C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D75, 043507 (2007), hep-ph/0607107

work page arXiv 2007
[3]

Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions

C. Caprini et al., JCAP04, 001 (2016), 1512.06239

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[4]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020
[5]

T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rept.67, 183 (1980)

1980
[6]

Auclair et al

P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel.26, 5 (2023), 2204.05434

work page arXiv 2023
[7]

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA) (2017), 1702.00786

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[8]

The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves

T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 105011 (2019), 1803.01944

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[9]

Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals

S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sopuerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro- Seoane, A. Petiteau, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D95, 103012 (2017), 1703.09722

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[10]

P. A. Seoane et al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel.26, 2 (2023), 2203.06016

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

LISA Definition Study Report

M. Colpi et al. (LISA) (2024), 2402.07571

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[12]

Hu and Y.-L

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

2017
[13]

TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), 1512.02076

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[14]

Detecting the Cosmic Gravitational Wave Background with the Big Bang Observer

V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 2435 (2006), gr-qc/0512039. 24

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[15]

Crowder and N

J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D72, 083005 (2005), gr-qc/0506015

work page arXiv 2005
[16]

N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 221103 (2001), astro- ph/0108011

work page arXiv 2001
[17]

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

S. Kawamura et al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), 2006.13545

work page arXiv 2021
[18]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.122, 345 (1961)

1961
[19]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev.124, 246 (1961)

1961
[20]

Vogl and W

U. Vogl and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.27, 195 (1991)

1991
[21]

L. Wang, Y. Jiang, L. He, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D100, 114009 (2019), 1901.04697

work page arXiv 2019
[22]

A. A. Osipov, B. Hiller, and A. H. Blin, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp.8, 183 (2015), 1411.2137

work page arXiv 2015
[23]

Christian, I

J.-E. Christian, I. A. Rather, H. Gholami, and M. Hofmann, Astron. Astrophys.701, A145 (2025), 2503.13626

work page arXiv 2025
[24]

Buballa, Nucl

M. Buballa, Nucl. Phys. A611, 393 (1996), nucl-th/9609044

work page arXiv 1996
[25]

Costa, C

P. Costa, C. A. de Sousa, M. C. Ruivo, and H. Hansen, EPL86, 31001 (2009), 0801.3616

work page arXiv 2009
[26]

T. Xia, L. He, and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D88, 056013 (2013), 1307.4622

work page arXiv 2013
[27]

Sakai, T

Y. Sakai, T. Sasaki, H. Kouno, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Rev. D82, 076003 (2010), 1006.3648

work page arXiv 2010
[28]

Kashiwa, H

K. Kashiwa, H. Kouno, M. Matsuzaki, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B662, 26 (2008), 0710.2180

work page arXiv 2008
[29]

Fukushima, Phys

K. Fukushima, Phys. Lett. B591, 277 (2004), hep-ph/0310121

work page arXiv 2004
[30]

A. J. Helmboldt, J. Kubo, and S. van der Woude, Phys. Rev. D100, 055025 (2019), 1904.07891

work page arXiv 2019
[31]

Gravitational Waves From a Dark (Twin) Phase Transition

P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 181101 (2015), 1504.07263

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[32]

Zhao and Z

R. Zhao and Z. Zhang (2026), 2603.07739

work page arXiv 2026
[33]

A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32 (1967)

1967
[34]

D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, New J. Phys.14, 125003 (2012), 1206.2942

work page Pith review arXiv 2012
[35]

A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.43, 27 (1993), hep-ph/9302210

work page Pith review arXiv 1993
[36]

P. L. Cho, Phys. Rev. D48, 3304 (1993), hep-ph/9212274

work page arXiv 1993
[37]

R. J. Crewther, P. Di Vecchia, G. Veneziano, and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B88, 123 (1979), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 91, 487 (1980)]

1979
[38]

Pich and E

A. Pich and E. de Rafael, Nucl. Phys. B367, 313 (1991)

1991
[39]

Boer and J

D. Boer and J. K. Boomsma, Phys. Rev. D78, 054027 (2008), 0806.1669

work page arXiv 2008
[40]

J. K. Boomsma and D. Boer, PoSCONFINEMENT8, 134 (2008), 0812.3077. 25

work page arXiv 2008
[41]

Kashiwa, H

K. Kashiwa, H. Kouno, T. Sakaguchi, M. Matsuzaki, and M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B647, 446 (2007), nucl-th/0608078

work page arXiv 2007
[42]

A. A. Osipov, B. Hiller, A. H. Blin, and J. da Providencia, Annals Phys.322, 2021 (2007), hep-ph/0607066

work page arXiv 2021
[43]

A. A. Osipov, B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A. H. Blin, and J. da Providencia, Phys. Lett. B646, 91 (2007), hep-ph/0612082

work page arXiv 2007
[44]

Asakawa and K

M. Asakawa and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. A504, 668 (1989)

1989
[45]

M. A. Stephanov, K. Rajagopal, and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4816 (1998), hep- ph/9806219

work page arXiv 1998
[46]

C. R. Allton, S. Ejiri, S. J. Hands, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Schmidt, and L. Scorzato, Phys. Rev. D66, 074507 (2002), hep-lat/0204010

work page arXiv 2002
[47]

M. A. Stephanov, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.153, 139 (2004), hep-ph/0402115

work page arXiv 2004
[48]

Ratti, M

C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D73, 014019 (2006), hep-ph/0506234

work page arXiv 2006
[49]

Ratti, M

C. Ratti, M. A. Thaler, and W. Weise (2006), nucl-th/0604025

work page arXiv 2006
[50]

Zhang and Y.-X

Z. Zhang and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. C75, 064910 (2007), hep-ph/0610221

work page arXiv 2007
[51]

S. K. Ghosh, T. K. Mukherjee, M. G. Mustafa, and R. Ray, Phys. Rev. D73, 114007 (2006), hep-ph/0603050

work page arXiv 2006
[52]

Gao and I

F. Gao and I. M. Oldengott, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 131301 (2022), 2106.11991

work page arXiv 2022
[53]

T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

1976
[54]

Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67, 3 (1974)

1974
[55]

A review of gravitational waves from cosmic domain walls

K. Saikawa, Universe3, 40 (2017), 1703.02576

work page Pith review arXiv 2017
[56]

On the estimation of gravitational wave spectrum from cosmic domain walls

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP02, 031 (2014), 1309.5001

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[57]

Gravitational Waves from Collapsing Domain Walls

T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP05, 032 (2010), 1002.1555

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[58]

Gravitational Waves from Collapsing Vacuum Domains

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

work page Pith review arXiv 1998
[59]

Garc´ ıa-Cely, G

C. Garc´ ıa-Cely, G. Landini, and´O. Zapata, Phys. Rev. D111, 063044 (2025), 2405.10367

work page arXiv 2025
[60]

Kang and J

Z. Kang and J. Zhu, JHEP09, 005 (2025), 2501.15242

work page arXiv 2025
[61]

Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), hep-ph/0404175

work page Pith review arXiv 2005
[62]

G. D. Kribs and E. T. Neil, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A31, 1643004 (2016), 1604.04627

work page arXiv 2016
[63]

S. P. Klevansky, Rev. Mod. Phys.64, 649 (1992)

1992
[64]

Hatsuda and T

T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept.247, 221 (1994), hep-ph/9401310

work page arXiv 1994
[65]

’t Hooft, Phys

G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976). 26

1976
[66]

Kobayashi and T

M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.44, 1422 (1970)

1970
[67]

Moreira, B

J. Moreira, B. Hiller, W. Broniowski, A. A. Osipov, and A. H. Blin, Phys. Rev. D89, 036009 (2014), 1312.4942

work page arXiv 2014
[68]

Hiller, A

B. Hiller, A. A. Osipov, J. Moreira, and A. H. Blin, in13th International Conference on Selected Problems of Modern Theoretical Physics (SPMTP 08): Dedicated to the 100th An- niversary of the Birth of D.I. Blokhintsev (1908-1979)(2008), 0809.2515

work page arXiv 1908
[69]

Eguchi, Phys

T. Eguchi, Phys. Rev. D14, 2755 (1976)

1976
[70]

Hubbard, Phys

J. Hubbard, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 77 (1959)

1959
[71]

A. A. Osipov, B. Hiller, V. Bernard, and A. H. Blin, Annals Phys.321, 2504 (2006), hep- ph/0507226

work page arXiv 2006
[72]

S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888 (1973)

1973
[73]

A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B216, 421 (1983), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

1983
[74]

S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

1977
[75]

Brdar, M

V. Brdar, M. Finetti, M. Matteini, A. P. Morais, and M. Nemevˇ sek (2025), 2505.04744

work page arXiv 2025
[76]

A. H. Guth and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D23, 876 (1981)

1981
[77]

Leitao, A

L. Leitao, A. Megevand, and A. D. Sanchez, JCAP10, 024 (2012), 1205.3070

work page arXiv 2012
[78]

Caprini et al., JCAP03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

C. Caprini et al., JCAP03, 024 (2020), 1910.13125

work page arXiv 2020
[79]

M. B. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma, and M. Pauly, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes24, 1 (2021), 2008.09136

work page arXiv 2021
[80]

E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019), ISBN 978-0-429-49286-0, 978-0-201-62674-2

2019

Showing first 80 references.