pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25726 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · ✦ hep-ph · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Imprint of domain wall annihilation on induced gravitational waves

Rishav Roshan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph gr-qc
keywords domain wallsinduced gravitational wavessymmetry breakingearly matter dominationstochastic gravitational wave backgroundZ2 phase transitionentropy dilution
0
0 comments X

The pith

Domain wall annihilation imprints a two-peaked spectrum on induced gravitational waves via an early matter-dominated phase.

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

The paper argues that domain walls formed by Z2 symmetry breaking annihilate by converting most of their energy into a long-lived scalar field. This scalar drives a temporary matter-dominated era that strongly amplifies gravitational waves induced by primordial density perturbations. When the scalar eventually decays, the universe returns to radiation domination and entropy injection dilutes the direct domain wall signal while leaving the boosted induced waves intact. The result is a stochastic gravitational wave background with two distinct peaks that can be observed in separate frequency windows. A reader would care because this supplies a new observational handle on the energy scales and lifetimes associated with early-universe symmetry breaking.

Core claim

During annihilation of domain walls, most energy is transferred to the scalar responsible for the original Z2 breaking and to any coupled species. Provided the scalar lives long enough, its delayed decay creates an early matter-dominated phase that amplifies induced gravitational waves sourced by primordial perturbations. The subsequent transition back to radiation domination injects entropy that dilutes the domain-wall contribution while preserving the enhanced induced signal, thereby producing a gravitational-wave spectrum containing two separate peaks that are in principle detectable across complementary frequency bands.

What carries the argument

The temporary early matter-dominated era driven by the long-lived scalar produced in domain-wall annihilation, which amplifies primordial-perturbation-induced gravitational waves before entropy dilution occurs.

If this is right

  • The gravitational-wave spectrum develops two distinct peaks separated by the duration of the matter-dominated phase.
  • Multi-band detectors can observe the lower-frequency peak from the amplified induced waves and the higher-frequency peak from the diluted domain-wall contribution.
  • The relative heights and frequency locations of the peaks encode the energy scale of the Z2 breaking and the lifetime of the scalar.
  • Entropy injection at the end of the matter era suppresses the direct domain-wall gravitational-wave signal while leaving the induced component enhanced.
  • The parameter space for detectable signals is explored by varying the symmetry-breaking scale and scalar lifetime.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Non-detection in planned pulsar-timing and space-based interferometers could place upper limits on the scalar lifetime relative to the annihilation temperature.
  • The two-peak morphology may help distinguish this source from purely inflationary or phase-transition gravitational-wave backgrounds in combined data sets.
  • If the scalar couples to Standard Model particles, its late decay could also produce observable entropy or baryon-asymmetry effects testable by other cosmological probes.

Load-bearing premise

The scalar field produced during domain wall annihilation must live long enough after the walls disappear to drive an early matter-dominated phase before it decays.

What would settle it

Observation of an induced gravitational-wave spectrum that shows neither the predicted amplitude boost nor the two-peak structure arising from an intervening matter-dominated era would falsify the mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25726 by Rishav Roshan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Parameter space in view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Parameter space in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The GW spectrum produced from the annihilation view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The GW spectrum produced from the annihilation view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The combined GW spectrum arising from the DW annihilation and enhanced IGW for a fixed value view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Domain wall annihilation can leave a distinctive imprint on the induced gravitational wave spectrum. During annihilation, most of the domain wall energy transforms into the scalar field responsible for the initial $\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry breaking that created the walls, along with any coupled species. If the produced scalar is sufficiently long-lived, its delayed decay drives an early matter-dominated phase following domain wall annihilation, significantly amplifying induced gravitational waves from primordial perturbations. The subsequent transition to radiation domination dilutes the domain wall contribution through entropy injection while preserving the enhanced induced signal. This creates a gravitational wave spectrum with two distinct peaks detectable across complementary frequency bands. We explore the observable parameter space and demonstrate how multi-band detection can probe early universe symmetry breaking.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that domain wall annihilation following Z_2 symmetry breaking can produce a distinctive two-peak signature in the induced gravitational wave spectrum. Most of the wall energy converts to a long-lived scalar (plus coupled species); if the scalar lifetime is long enough to drive an early matter-dominated era, induced GWs from primordial perturbations are amplified. Subsequent scalar decay injects entropy, diluting the domain-wall contribution while preserving the enhanced induced signal, yielding two observable peaks across complementary frequency bands. The authors map the viable parameter space in the scalar lifetime and symmetry-breaking scale.

Significance. If the mechanism and its parameter-space mapping hold, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable link between high-scale symmetry breaking and multi-band GW observations. It extends standard induced-GW calculations by incorporating a transient matter-dominated phase and entropy dilution, offering a new handle on early-universe phase transitions that could be tested with LISA, PTA, and future detectors.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §4] The central two-peak claim is conditional on the scalar being sufficiently long-lived to drive a prolonged early matter-dominated era after annihilation. The manuscript states this condition but does not provide a quantitative lower bound on the lifetime in terms of the annihilation time or the symmetry-breaking scale, nor does it show how the induced-GW enhancement factor scales when the condition is only marginally satisfied.
  2. [§4] The parameter-space exploration in §4 treats the scalar lifetime and symmetry-breaking scale as independent free parameters. No scan or exclusion plot is shown that incorporates the requirement that the scalar must remain long-lived while still decaying before BBN; this omission makes it difficult to judge how large a fraction of the quoted observable region survives realistic model-building constraints.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract and introduction refer to 'complementary frequency bands' without specifying which detectors (LISA, PTA, etc.) are expected to cover each peak; adding a brief sentence or footnote would improve clarity.
  2. [§2] The notation for the GW energy-density spectrum is introduced without an explicit definition of the frequency variable or the normalization convention used for the two peaks; a short paragraph in §2 would remove ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the positive recommendation for minor revision. The comments have helped us strengthen the presentation of the conditions for the two-peak signature and the viability of the parameter space. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4] The central two-peak claim is conditional on the scalar being sufficiently long-lived to drive a prolonged early matter-dominated era after annihilation. The manuscript states this condition but does not provide a quantitative lower bound on the lifetime in terms of the annihilation time or the symmetry-breaking scale, nor does it show how the induced-GW enhancement factor scales when the condition is only marginally satisfied.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative lower bound on the scalar lifetime would make the central claim more precise. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit derivation of the minimum lifetime τ_φ ≳ (t_ann / t_dom) × (ρ_wall / ρ_rad) required for the scalar to drive a prolonged matter-dominated era after domain-wall annihilation, expressed in terms of the annihilation time t_ann and the symmetry-breaking scale v. We have also included a supplementary figure that shows the scaling of the induced-GW enhancement factor as a function of the ratio τ_φ / t_ann in the marginally satisfied regime, confirming that the two-peak structure persists (albeit with reduced contrast) down to the boundary of the condition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] The parameter-space exploration in §4 treats the scalar lifetime and symmetry-breaking scale as independent free parameters. No scan or exclusion plot is shown that incorporates the requirement that the scalar must remain long-lived while still decaying before BBN; this omission makes it difficult to judge how large a fraction of the quoted observable region survives realistic model-building constraints.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important consistency check. In the revised version we have performed a joint scan over the scalar lifetime and symmetry-breaking scale that enforces both the lower bound for matter domination (derived in response to the first comment) and the upper bound from BBN (decay temperature T_decay ≳ 1 MeV). The updated §4 now contains an exclusion plot in the (τ_φ, v) plane that shades the viable region satisfying all constraints; the plot explicitly indicates the surviving fraction of the previously quoted observable parameter space, which remains O(1) for the phenomenologically interesting range. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper describes a sequence of standard cosmological processes: domain wall annihilation producing a long-lived scalar that drives an early matter-dominated era, amplifying induced GWs from primordial perturbations, followed by entropy dilution upon decay. No equations or claims in the abstract reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The central result (two-peak GW spectrum) follows directly from the stated physical assumptions without renaming known results or smuggling ansatze. The derivation relies on independent cosmological dynamics rather than internal loops.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; these are inferred from the described mechanism. No specific numerical values or additional entities introduced beyond standard domain walls and scalars.

free parameters (2)
  • scalar field lifetime
    Determines the duration of the matter-dominated era and thus the amplification factor.
  • symmetry breaking scale
    Sets the energy density of domain walls and the frequency of the GW peaks.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Z2 symmetry breaking leads to domain wall formation
    Standard assumption in models of early universe phase transitions.
  • standard math Induced gravitational waves arise from scalar perturbations in radiation domination
    Based on established general relativity calculations for GW production.
  • domain assumption Entropy injection from scalar decay transitions to radiation domination
    Assumes the decay products thermalize and dilute the wall energy appropriately.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5405 in / 1410 out tokens · 62072 ms · 2026-05-07T15:48:32.810860+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 102 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Once formed, their energy density dilutes slower (ρDW ∝t −1) in comparison to that of radiation and mat- ter, causing them to rapidly dominate the energy budget of the Universe. This famous DW problem can be re- solved by destabilizing the walls through explicit break- ing of the discrete symmetry [63] and introducing biased conditions at the time of form...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Afzal et al

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    L. P. Grishchuk, Sov. Phys. JETP40, 409 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    A. A. Starobinsky, JETP Lett.30, 682 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    M. C. Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori, and S. Matar- rese, Riv. Nuovo Cim.39, 399 (2016), arXiv:1605.01615 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D58, 083504 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9806329

    work page arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D60, 123511 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9903004

    work page arXiv 1999

  9. [9]

    Riazuelo and J.-P

    A. Riazuelo and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D62, 083506 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0004156

    work page arXiv 2000

  10. [10]

    Seto and J

    N. Seto and J. Yokoyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jap.72, 3082 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0305096

    work page arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    L. A. Boyle and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D78, 043531 (2008), arXiv:0708.2279 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Gouttenoire, G

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    M. R. Haque, D. Maity, T. Paul, and L. Sriramkumar, Phys. Rev. D104, 063513 (2021), arXiv:2105.09242 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Chakraborty, M

    A. Chakraborty, M. R. Haque, D. Maity, and R. Mon- dal, (2023), arXiv:2304.13637 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Cléry, R. T. Co, Y. Mambrini, and K. A. Olive, JHEP12, 072 (2022), arXiv:2210.05716 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    B.Barman, A.Ghoshal, B.Grzadkowski, andA.Socha, (2023), arXiv:2305.00027 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Barman, A

    B. Barman, A. Basu, D. Borah, A. Chakraborty, and R. Roshan, Phys. Rev. D111, 055016 (2025), arXiv:2410.19048 [hep-ph] . 9

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Matarrese, O

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1311 (1993)

    1993

  19. [19]

    Matarrese, O

    S. Matarrese, O. Pantano, and D. Saez, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 320 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310036

    work page arXiv 1994

  20. [20]

    Matarrese, S

    S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach, and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D58, 043504 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707278

    work page arXiv 1998

  21. [21]

    Mollerach, D

    S. Mollerach, D. Harari, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D69, 063002 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310711

    work page arXiv 2004

  22. [22]

    K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D75, 123518 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612013

    work page arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    Baumann, P

    D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi, and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D76, 084019 (2007), arXiv:hep- th/0703290

    work page arXiv 2007

  24. [24]

    Dom` enech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    G. Domènech, Universe7, 398 (2021), arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Roshan and G

    R. Roshan and G. White, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 015001 (2025), arXiv:2401.04388 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Winicour, Astrophys

    J. Winicour, Astrophys. J.182, 919 (1973)

    1973

  27. [27]

    C. J. Hogan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.218, 629 (1986)

    1986

  28. [28]

    Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves,

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, and L. Wu, (2023), arXiv:2305.02357 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and X. Siemens, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063511 (2010), arXiv:1007.1218 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2010

  30. [30]

    Arzoumanian et al

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Xueet al., Phys

    X. Xueet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 251303 (2021), arXiv:2110.03096 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Di Bari, D

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Madge, E

    E. Madge, E. Morgante, C. Puchades-Ibáñez, N. Ram- berg, W. Ratzinger, S. Schenk, and P. Schwaller, (2023), arXiv:2306.14856 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Siemens, V

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

    work page arXiv 2007

  35. [35]

    Cosmic String Interpretation of NANOGrav Pulsar Timing Data,

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    S. F. King, S. Pascoli, J. Turner, and Y.-L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 021802 (2021), arXiv:2005.13549 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    From NANOGrav to LIGO with metastable cosmic strings,

    W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, and K. Schmitz, Phys. Lett. B811, 135914 (2020), arXiv:2009.10649 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  38. [38]

    Has NANOGrav found first evidence for cosmic strings?,

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    L. Bian, J. Shu, B. Wang, Q. Yuan, and J. Zong, Phys. Rev. D106, L101301 (2022), arXiv:2205.07293 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    B. Fu, A. Ghoshal, and S. King, (2023), arXiv:2306.07334 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    An and C

    H. An and C. Yang, (2023), arXiv:2304.02361 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    A. S. Sakharov, Y. N. Eroshenko, and S. G. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D104, 043005 (2021), arXiv:2104.08750 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    Bai, T.-K

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Domènech, (2024), arXiv:2402.17388 [gr-qc]

    G. Domènech, (2024), arXiv:2402.17388 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    New Ideas on the For- mationandAstrophysicalDetectionofPrimordialBlack Holes,

    M. M. Flores and A. Kusenko, “New Ideas on the For- mationandAstrophysicalDetectionofPrimordialBlack Holes,” (2025) arXiv:2404.05430 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    del Corral, K

    D. del Corral, K. S. Kumar, and J. Marto, Phys. Dark Univ.49, 101991 (2025), arXiv:2504.05875 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Gross, Y

    M. Gross, Y. Mambrini, E. Kpatcha, M. O. Olea- Romacho, and R. Roshan, Phys. Rev. D111, 035020 (2025), arXiv:2411.04189 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Borah, S

    D. Borah, S. Jyoti Das, and R. Roshan, Nucl. Phys. B 1002, 116528 (2024), arXiv:2208.04965 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Barman, D

    B. Barman, D. Borah, S. Jyoti Das, and R. Roshan, Phys. Rev. D107, 095002 (2023), arXiv:2212.00052 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Borah, S

    D. Borah, S. Jyoti Das, R. Roshan, and R. Samanta, Phys. Rev. D108, 023531 (2023), arXiv:2304.11844 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    Barman, S

    B. Barman, S. Jyoti Das, M. R. Haque, and Y. Mambrini, Phys. Rev. D110, 043528 (2024), arXiv:2403.05626 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Borah, S

    D. Borah, S. Jyoti Das, and I. Saha, Phys. Rev. D110, 035014 (2024), arXiv:2401.12282 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rept.121, 263 (1985)

    1985

  56. [56]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, Vol. 69 (1990)

    1990

  57. [57]

    Decay of metastable topological defects,

    J. Preskill and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D47, 2324 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9209210

    work page arXiv 1993

  58. [58]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic strings and other topological defects(1994)

    1994

  59. [59]

    T. D. Lee, Phys. Rept.9, 143 (1974)

    1974

  60. [60]

    Wei and Y

    D. Wei and Y. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D110, 123505 (2024), arXiv:2208.07186 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Z. A. Borboruah and U. A. Yajnik, Phys. Rev. D110, 043016 (2024), arXiv:2212.05829 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Fornal, D

    B. Fornal, D. Polynice, and L. Thompson, Phys. Rev. D110, 095013 (2024), arXiv:2406.16463 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Roshan and I

    R. Roshan and I. Saha, (2026), arXiv:2603.15829 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  64. [64]

    G. B. Gelmini, M. Gleiser, and E. W. Kolb, Phys. Rev. D39, 1558 (1989)

    1989

  65. [65]

    Zhang, C

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Q.-Q. Zeng, X. He, Z.-H. Yu, and J. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D111, 115017 (2025), arXiv:2501.10059 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Borah and I

    D. Borah and I. Saha, (2025), arXiv:2512.22339 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    A review of gravitational waves from cosmic domain walls

    K. Saikawa, Universe3, 40 (2017), arXiv:1703.02576 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    S. F. King, R. Roshan, X. Wang, G. White, and M. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D109, 024057 (2024), arXiv:2308.03724 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    S. F. King, R. Roshan, X. Wang, G. White, and M. Ya- mazaki, JCAP05, 071 (2024), arXiv:2311.12487 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Bhattacharya, N

    S. Bhattacharya, N. Mondal, R. Roshan, and D. Vat- syayan, JCAP06, 029 (2024), arXiv:2312.15053 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Borah, N

    D. Borah, N. Das, and R. Roshan, Phys. Rev. D110, 075042 (2024), arXiv:2406.04404 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Gouttenoire, S

    Y. Gouttenoire, S. F. King, R. Roshan, X. Wang, G. White, and M. Yamazaki, Phys. Rev. D112, 075007 (2025), arXiv:2501.16414 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D40, 1002 (1989)

    1989

  75. [75]

    Assadullahi and D

    H. Assadullahi and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D79, 083511 10 (2009), arXiv:0901.0989 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2009

  76. [76]

    Jedamzik, M

    K. Jedamzik, M. Lemoine, and J. Martin, JCAP09, 034 (2010), arXiv:1002.3039 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2010

  77. [77]

    Alabidi, K

    L. Alabidi, K. Kohri, M. Sasaki, and Y. Sendouda, JCAP05, 033 (2013), arXiv:1303.4519 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2013

  78. [78]

    Kohri and T

    K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D97, 123532 (2018), arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  79. [79]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri, T. Nakama, and T. Ter- ada, Phys. Rev. D100, 043532 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 049901 (2023)], arXiv:1904.12879 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Inomata, K

    K. Inomata, K. Kohri, T. Nakama, and T. Terada, JCAP10, 071 (2019), [Erratum: JCAP 08, E01 (2023)], arXiv:1904.12878 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.