Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-27 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read A supersymmetric hidden sector produces detectable gravitational waves through supercooled phase transitions along flat directions.

desk verdict This paper applies radiative barriers on SUSY D-flat directions to a hidden U(1) sector that can source ET/CE-band GWs while also producing a dark-quark DM candidate, but the barrier assumption is stated without the supporting potential derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.13597 v1 pith:NIO3KPEM submitted 2026-06-11 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Jinzheng Li , Pran Nath This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords supersymmetryhiddensectorphasetransitiongravitationalwavessupercoolingdarkmatterportalcouplingEinsteinTelescope
topics Dark Matter
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 studies supercooled first-order phase transitions in a supersymmetric hidden sector with a broken U(1) symmetry. It shows that along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so soft supersymmetry breaking generates the barrier radiatively. For gaugino mass to vacuum expectation value ratios of 0.05 to 0.23, the gravitational wave energy density can reach 3 times 10 to the minus 10, which is in the range for the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. The signal strength is set by the portal coupling that determines the temperature ratio between the hidden and visible sectors at percolation. The same model can also generate the correct dark matter density through freeze-out and dilution.

What carries the argument

The D-flat direction where the tree-level quartic vanishes, allowing the barrier to be generated purely by radiative effects from soft supersymmetry breaking.

What would settle it

Non-observation of a gravitational wave signal with Omega_GW h squared around 3 times 10 to the minus 10 in the relevant frequency range at the Einstein Telescope or Cosmic Explorer would falsify the predicted amplitude for those parameter values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier is generated radiatively by soft SUSY-breaking splittings in the DR-bar scheme. In this scheme the gaugino mass sets the barrier depth while the soft scalar mass stabilizes the broken vacuum. For M_lambda tilde over v_X between 0.05 and 0.23 the predicted signal reaches Omega_GW h squared of 3 times 10 to the minus 10 near the percolation boundary, with the amplitude controlled by the hidden-to-visible temperature ratio via the portal coupling delta.

Load-bearing premise

The tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction so that the barrier is generated purely radiatively by soft SUSY-breaking splittings in the DR-bar scheme.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The gravitational wave amplitude varies with the portal coupling, reaching 7 times 10 to the minus 11 for delta of 10 to the minus 4 in a cold hidden sector.
  • Reheating is tracked using an 11-variable Boltzmann system that accounts for the energy budget and redshift factors.
  • The hidden sector can match the observed dark matter density with dark quark masses between 30 and 800 keV and negligible effective neutrino species contribution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This links supersymmetric particle models directly to gravitational wave observations.
  • The temperature ratio control via portal coupling could be tested by combining GW data with dark matter constraints.
  • The radiative barrier mechanism may extend to other supersymmetric or non-supersymmetric flat direction models.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies supercooled first-order phase transitions along D-flat directions in a supersymmetric hidden U(1)_X sector. It asserts that the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier arises purely from one-loop soft SUSY-breaking splittings in the DR-bar scheme, with M_λ̃ setting the depth and m_0 stabilizing the broken vacuum. For M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 the predicted GW signal reaches Ω_GW h² ∼ 3×10^{-10} near the percolation boundary, with amplitude set by the hidden-to-visible temperature ratio controlled by portal coupling δ; an 11-variable Boltzmann system tracks the evolution and reheating, while the same sector can yield Ω_CDM h² = 0.12 via relativistic dark-quark freeze-out and entropy dilution for m_q ≃ 30–800 keV.

Significance. If the radiative barrier generation, the temperature-ratio control via δ, and the Boltzmann evolution are validated, the work supplies a concrete parameter window linking SUSY flat directions to detectable GW signals at ET and CE together with a viable DM explanation. The explicit dependence on initial hidden-sector temperature and the separation of nucleating exterior from reheated interior are potentially falsifiable features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation] Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation: the central claim that the tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction (so the barrier is generated purely radiatively by soft splittings in the DR-bar scheme) is load-bearing for the supercooling depth, percolation temperature ratio, and final GW amplitude, yet no explicit tree-level potential, D-flatness conditions, or one-loop effective-potential derivation is supplied.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline amplitude Ω_GW h² ∼ 3×10^{-10} for M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 is obtained inside the interval chosen to place the signal near the percolation boundary; the temperature ratio is likewise tuned via δ, and the text supplies neither derivation steps nor error budgets for the 11-variable Boltzmann solver whose output inherits this ratio.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states ranges for M_λ̃/v_X, δ and m_q but does not indicate how these intervals were obtained from the underlying potential or Boltzmann integration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the load-bearing aspects of the barrier generation and the numerical implementation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and self-containedness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation] Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation: the central claim that the tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction (so the barrier is generated purely radiatively by soft splittings in the DR-bar scheme) is load-bearing for the supercooling depth, percolation temperature ratio, and final GW amplitude, yet no explicit tree-level potential, D-flatness conditions, or one-loop effective-potential derivation is supplied.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation strengthens the central claim. Although the vanishing tree-level quartic along the D-flat direction follows from standard SUSY D-term cancellation for the chosen U(1)_X charges, the manuscript would benefit from a self-contained presentation. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that (i) states the D-flatness conditions, (ii) writes the tree-level scalar potential along the flat direction, and (iii) derives the one-loop effective potential in the ¯DR scheme, showing explicitly how the gaugino mass M_λ̃ generates the barrier while m_0 stabilizes the broken vacuum. This addition will not change any numerical results but will make the radiative origin of the barrier fully transparent. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline amplitude Ω_GW h^{2} ∼ 3 imes10^{-10} for M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 is obtained inside the interval chosen to place the signal near the percolation boundary; the temperature ratio is likewise tuned via δ, and the text supplies neither derivation steps nor error budgets for the 11-variable Boltzmann solver whose output inherits this ratio.

    Authors: The interval M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 is selected because it simultaneously produces sufficient supercooling for a detectable GW amplitude while still allowing percolation before the hidden sector temperature drops too far; this is quantified in the main text by the nucleation and percolation criteria. The hidden-to-visible temperature ratio is obtained by solving the portal-mediated energy transfer term proportional to δ. The 11-variable Boltzmann system is described in the manuscript, but we acknowledge that explicit step-by-step derivation of the temperature evolution equations and a discussion of numerical convergence are not provided. In the revision we will expand the relevant section with the full set of Boltzmann equations, initial conditions, and a brief convergence/stability analysis. A quantitative error budget for the solver is not currently available and would require additional dedicated numerical work; we will therefore add only a qualitative assessment of the dominant uncertainties (initial temperature ratio, δ range, and redshift factors) while noting that a full Monte-Carlo error propagation lies beyond the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained under stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper states that along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier arises radiatively from soft-term splittings in the DR-bar scheme, with M_λ̃ setting the depth. It then reports the resulting GW amplitude Ω_GW h² ∼ 3×10^{-10} for the interval M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 and varying δ. These are explicit model inputs and computed outputs, not reductions by construction. No equation equates a fitted quantity to a renamed prediction, no self-citation chain bears the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The 11-variable Boltzmann evolution and temperature-ratio dependence on δ are independent dynamical calculations within the chosen parameter space. The result is therefore a standard parameter scan inside a well-defined SUSY model, not a circular re-statement of its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several soft SUSY parameters and the assumption that the hidden sector starts at a different temperature; these are introduced to produce the desired supercooling and DM abundance rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • M_λ̃ / v_X
    Gaugino mass over vev ratio that sets barrier depth; range 0.05-0.23 chosen to reach target GW amplitude.
  • δ
    Portal coupling controlling hidden-visible temperature ratio at percolation; scanned from 10^{-6} to 10^{-4}.
  • m_q
    Dark quark mass 30-800 keV chosen to match Ω_CDM after freeze-out and dilution.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction of the U(1)_X sector.
    Standard property of supersymmetric models with D-flat directions invoked to justify radiative barrier.
  • domain assumption Barrier depth is set by gaugino mass in the DR-bar scheme.
    Scheme choice stated in abstract as determining the radiative potential.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Natural Supercooling and Reheating along Supersymmetric Flat Directions and Observable Gravitational Waves at the Einstein Telescope and the Cosmic Explorer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIO3KPEM

@misc{pith2026260613597,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Natural Supercooling and Reheating along Supersymmetric Flat Directions and Observable Gravitational Waves at the Einstein Telescope and the Cosmic Explorer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIO3KPEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.13597}
}
abstract

We study supercooled first-order phase transitions in a supersymmetric hidden sector with a spontaneously broken $U(1)_X$, focusing on the frequency range of the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. Along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier is generated radiatively by soft SUSY-breaking splittings. In the $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme the gaugino mass $M_{\tilde\lambda}$ sets the barrier depth, while the soft scalar mass $m_0$ stabilizes the broken vacuum. For $M_{\tilde\lambda}/v_X\simeq0.05$--$0.23$, the predicted signal reaches $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\sim3\times10^{-10}$ near the percolation boundary. The observable amplitude depends sensitively on the portal coupling $\delta$ through the hidden-to-visible temperature ratio at percolation: for a cold initial hidden sector the signal rises from the ET floor at $\delta=10^{-6}$ to $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\simeq7\times10^{-11}$ as the sectors approach thermal contact at $\delta=10^{-4}$, while a hotter initial hidden sector gives a large signal already for weak portal coupling. We follow this evolution with an 11-variable Boltzmann system that separates the cold nucleating exterior from the reheated true-vacuum interior; reheating mainly enters through the energy budget and redshift factors. The same hidden sector can reproduce $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.12$ through relativistic dark-quark freeze-out followed by entropy dilution from hidden-Higgs decay, with $m_q\simeq30$--$800\;$keV and $N_{\rm eff}\lesssim{\rm few}\times10^{-5}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13597 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter space and GW spectra for the SUSY flat-direction scenario (λh = 0, vX = 107 GeV, Th = Tv). Left column: m0 = 3.25 Mλ˜, gx = 0.85; right column: m0 = 2.75 Mλ˜, gx = 1.0. (a,b): β/H in the gx–Mλ˜/vX plane; gray: percolation fails; colored stars: five benchmarks shown below. (c,d): GW power spectra for the five benchmarks (solid), with projected sensitivities of LISA, BBO, DECIGO, aLIGO, ET, and CE. Decreasin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temperature evolution, false-vacuum fraction, and GW spectrum for the near￾boundary benchmark Mλ˜/vX = 0.23. The columns correspond to δ = 10−6 , 10−5 , 10−4 , while the upper and lower rows show ξ0 = 0.3 and ξ0 = 1, respectively. In the temperature panels, the solid curve is the cold false-vacuum ratio ξf and the dashed curve is the reheated true￾vacuum ratio ξt . The grey dashed curves in the GW panels denote the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. False-vacuum fraction Pfv as a function of the cold exterior temperature Th,f for the near-boundary benchmark Mλ˜/vX = 0.23 at ξ0 = 1 and δ = 10−6 . The solid curve is the standard calculation without reheating, while the dashed curve is the two-temperature result including latent-heat release. Since Γ ∝ exp[−S3(Th,f )/Th,f ] is controlled by the cold exterior, both treatments percolate at essentially the same tempe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hidden-sector yields Yi = ni/s as functions of the visible temperature for the near-boundary benchmark Mλ˜/vX = 0.23. The columns correspond to δ = 10−6 , 10−5 , 10−4 , and the upper and lower rows show ξ0 = 0.3 and ξ0 = 1, respectively. The gauge-sector states decay i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 128 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. Caballero, J. Yuan and Y. Xu,et al.Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, no.7, 075024 (2023) doi:10.1088/1674- 4527/acdfa5 [arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.1088/1674- 2023

  5. [5]

    2022, Mon

    J. Antoniadis, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Babak, M. Bailes, A. S. B. Nielsen, P. T. Baker, C. G. Bassa, B. Becsy, A. Berthereau and M. Bonetti,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.510, no.4, 4873-4887 (2022) doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3418 [arXiv:2201.03980 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3418 2022

  6. [6]

    Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA

    G. Janssen, G. Hobbs, M. McLaughlin, C. Bassa, A. T. Deller, M. Kramer, K. Lee, C. Mingarelli, P. Rosado and S. Sanidas,et al.PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015) doi:10.22323/1.215.0037 [arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.22323/1.215.0037 2015

  7. [7]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics

    A. Afzalet al.[NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett.951, no.1, L11 (2023) [erratum: Astrophys. J. Lett.971, no.1, L27 (2024); erratum: Astrophys. J.971, no.1, L27 (2024)] doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 [arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 2023

  8. [8]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array

    J. Antoniadiset al.[EPTA and InPTA], Astron. Astrophys.685, A94 (2024) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347433 [arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347433 2024

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    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

  3. [11]

    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

  4. [12]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris and L. Wu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.135, 104094 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104094 [arXiv:2305.02357 [hep-ph]]. 40

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [15]

    Lewicki, O

    M. Lewicki, O. Pujolàs and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.9, 857 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09669-6 [arXiv:2106.09706 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  7. [16]

    Madge, E

    E. Madge, E. Morgante, C. Puchades-Ibáñez, N. Ramberg, W. Ratzinger, S. Schenk and P. Schwaller, JHEP10, 171 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)171 [arXiv:2306.14856 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  8. [18]

    Nakai, M

    Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B816, 136238 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136238 [arXiv:2009.09754 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  9. [19]

    Ratzinger and P

    W. Ratzinger and P. Schwaller, SciPost Phys.10, no.2, 047 (2021) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.2.047 [arXiv:2009.11875 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  10. [20]

    W. Z. Feng, J. Li, P. Nath and Z. H. Ye, Phys. Rev. D113, no.6, 063504 (2026) doi:10.1103/kvq2-glq5 [arXiv:2510.13770 [hep-ph]]

    2026 doi arXiv

  11. [21]

    Bringmann, T

    T. Bringmann, T. Konstandin, J. Matuszak, K. Schmidt-Hoberg and C. Tasillo, [arXiv:2602.09092 [hep-ph]]

  12. [22]

    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

  13. [23]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia and M. Beker,et al.Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    2010 doi

  14. [24]

    A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 970 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.970

    1982 doi

  15. [25]

    Barbieri, S

    R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B119, 343 (1982) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90685-2

    1982 doi

  16. [26]

    L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D27, 2359-2378 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2359

    1983 doi

  17. [27]

    P. Nath, R. L. Arnowitt and A. H. Chamseddine, WSP, 1984, doi:10.1142/0094

    1984 doi

  18. [28]

    H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rept.110, 1-162 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5

    1984 doi

  19. [30]

    S. P. Martin, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18, 1-98 (1998) doi:10.1142/9789812839657_0001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 [hep-ph]]

    1998 doi arXiv

  20. [31]

    Baer and X

    H. Baer and X. Tata, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-29031-9, 978-0-511-19011-7, 978-0-521-29031-9, 978-0-521-85786-4

    2006

  21. [32]

    Nath, Cambridge University Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-521-19702-1, 978-1-316-98396- 6 doi:10.1017/9781139048118

    P. Nath, Cambridge University Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-521-19702-1, 978-1-316-98396- 6 doi:10.1017/9781139048118

    2016 doi

  22. [33]

    Nath, [arXiv:2603.04664 [hep-ph]]

    P. Nath, [arXiv:2603.04664 [hep-ph]]

  23. [34]

    Akula and P

    S. Akula and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D87, no.11, 115022 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.115022 [arXiv:1304.5526 [hep-ph]]

    2013 doi arXiv

  24. [35]

    J. Li, P. Nath and R. M. Syed, JHEP07, 222 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)222 [arXiv:2503.19871 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  25. [38]

    S. Iso, P. D. Serpico and K. Shimada, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.14, 141301 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141301 [arXiv:1704.04955 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  26. [39]

    Randall and G

    L. Randall and G. Servant, JHEP05, 054 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/05/054 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607158 [hep-ph]]

    2007 doi arXiv

  27. [40]

    Craig, N

    N. Craig, N. Levi, A. Mariotti and D. Redigolo, JHEP21, 184 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)184 [arXiv:2011.13949 [hep-ph]]

    2020 doi

  28. [41]

    N. Levi, T. Opferkuch and D. Redigolo, JHEP02, 125 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)125 [arXiv:2212.08085 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  29. [42]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B105, 267 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90885-6

    1981 doi

  30. [43]

    Salvio, JCAP04, 051 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/051 [arXiv:2302.10212 [hep-ph]]

    A. Salvio, JCAP04, 051 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/051 [arXiv:2302.10212 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  31. [44]

    Salvio, JCAP12, 046 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/046 [arXiv:2307.04694 [hep-ph]]

    A. Salvio, JCAP12, 046 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/046 [arXiv:2307.04694 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  32. [45]

    T. P. Dutka, T. H. Jung and C. S. Shin, JHEP05, 182 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)182 [arXiv:2412.15864 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  33. [46]

    Haba and T

    N. Haba and T. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 075027 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.075027 [arXiv:1911.01292 [hep-ph]]

    2020 doi

  34. [47]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D95, no.1, 015020 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.015020 [arXiv:1604.05035 [hep-ph]]. 42

    2017 doi arXiv

  35. [48]

    Marzola, A

    L. Marzola, A. Racioppi and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.7, 484 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4996-1 [arXiv:1704.01034 [hep-ph]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  36. [49]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D98, no.6, 063532 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063532 [arXiv:1807.00336 [hep-ph]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  37. [50]

    Holdom, Phys

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

    1986 doi

  38. [51]

    K. R. Dienes, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B492, 104-118 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00173-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9610479 [hep-ph]]

    1997 doi arXiv

  39. [52]

    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

  40. [53]

    Kors and P

    B. Kors and P. Nath, JHEP12, 005 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/12/005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0406167 [hep-ph]]

    2004 doi arXiv

  41. [54]

    Rescigno and A

    F. Rescigno and A. Salvio, JCAP02, 021 (2026) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/021 [arXiv:2507.21215 [hep-ph]]

    2026 doi

  42. [55]

    Matuszak and C

    J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo, [arXiv:2605.15259 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  43. [57]

    Barman, M

    B. Barman, M. Kierkla, M. Lewicki and M. Merchand, [arXiv:2603.11184 [astro- ph.CO]]

  44. [58]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191-3203 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3191

    1991 doi

  45. [59]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145-179 (1991) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(91)90438-4

    1991 doi

  46. [60]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D33, 1585 (1986) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D34, 3263 (1986)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.1585

    1986 doi

  47. [61]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys.69, 1-547 (1990) Taylor and Francis, 2019, ISBN 978-0-429-49286-0, 978-0-201-62674-2 doi:10.1201/9780429492860

    1990 doi

  48. [62]

    Moroi and L

    T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B570, 455-472 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(99)00748-8 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906527 [hep-ph]]

    2000 doi arXiv

  49. [63]

    G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D64, 023508 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.023508 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005123 [hep-ph]]

    2001 doi arXiv

  50. [64]

    Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. As- trophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2020 doi arXiv

  51. [65]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T. H. Yeh and C. Young, JCAP03, 010 (2020) [erratum: JCAP11, E02 (2020)] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010 [arXiv:1912.01132 [astro- ph.CO]]. 43

    2020 doi

  52. [66]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T. H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004 [arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 doi arXiv

  53. [67]

    Brust, D

    C. Brust, D. E. Kaplan and M. T. Walters, JHEP12, 058 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2013)058 [arXiv:1303.5379 [hep-ph]]

    2013 doi arXiv

  54. [68]

    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

  55. [69]

    Balan, T

    S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo, JCAP08, 062 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/062 [arXiv:2502.19478 [hep-ph]]

    2025 doi

  56. [70]

    W. Z. Feng, J. Li and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 015020 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015020 [arXiv:2403.09558 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  57. [71]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Nath, [arXiv:2602.14324 [astro-ph.CO]]

  58. [72]

    Aboubrahim and P

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, JHEP09, 084 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)084 [arXiv:2205.07316 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  59. [73]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D108, no.11, 115008 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.115008 [arXiv:2304.08454 [hep-ph]]

    2023 doi

  60. [74]

    Nath and J

    P. Nath and J. Li, LHEP2024, 502 (2024) doi:10.31526/lhep.2024.502 [arXiv:2402.04123 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  61. [75]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888-1910 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    1910 doi

  62. [76]

    Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9901312 [hep-ph]]

    M. Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9901312 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  63. [77]

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

    2011 doi arXiv

  64. [78]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320-3341 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3320

    1974 doi

  65. [79]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D47, 3546 (1993) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 50, 6662 (1994)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3546 [arXiv:hep-ph/9212235 [hep-ph]]

    1993 doi arXiv

  66. [80]

    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

  67. [81]

    M. E. Carrington, Phys. Rev. D45, 2933-2944 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2933

    1992 doi

  68. [82]

    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

  69. [83]

    S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929-2936 (1977) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D16, 1248 (1977)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2929

    1977 doi

  70. [84]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D16, 1762-1768 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1762 44

    1977 doi

  71. [85]

    S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D21, 3305 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305

    1980 doi

  72. [86]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B100, 37-40 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90281-1

    1981 doi

  73. [87]

    A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B216, 421 (1983) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B223, 544 (1983)] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(83)90072-X

    1983 doi

  74. [88]

    C. L. Wainwright, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 2006-2013 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2012.04.004 [arXiv:1109.4189 [hep-ph]]

    2006 doi arXiv

  75. [89]

    Guada, M

    V. Guada, M. Nemevšek and M. Pintar, Comput. Phys. Commun.256, 107480 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2020.107480 [arXiv:2002.00881 [hep-ph]]

    2020 doi

  76. [90]

    Basler and M

    P. Basler and M. Mühlleitner, Comput. Phys. Commun.237, 62-85 (2019) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.11.006 [arXiv:1803.02846 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi arXiv

  77. [91]

    Schmitz, JHEP01, 097 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)097 [arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]]

    K. Schmitz, JHEP01, 097 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2021)097 [arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]]

    2021 doi arXiv

  78. [92]

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

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

    arXiv

  79. [93]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 2435-2446 (2006) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/23/7/014 [arXiv:gr-qc/0512039 [gr-qc]]

    2006 doi arXiv

  80. [94]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 221103 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.221103 [arXiv:astro-ph/0108011 [astro-ph]]

    2001 doi arXiv

  81. [95]

    Kawamura, M

    S. Kawamura, M. Ando, N. Seto, S. Sato, T. Nakamura, K. Tsubono, N. Kanda, T. Tanaka, J. Yokoyama and I. Funaki,et al.Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094011 (2011) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    2011 doi

  82. [96]

    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

  83. [97]

    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

  84. [98]

    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 arXiv

  85. [99]

    Reitze, R

    D. Reitze, R. X. Adhikari, S. Ballmer, B. Barish, L. Barsotti, G. Billingsley, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, D. Coyne and R. Eisenstein,et al.Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, no.7, 035 (2019) [arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [100]

    M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton and M. G. Haehnelt, Phys. Rev. D88, 043502 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043502 [arXiv:1306.2314 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 doi arXiv

  87. [101]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279-390 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175 [hep-ph]]. 45

    2005 doi arXiv

  88. [102]

    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

  89. [103]

    K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rept.537, 91-121 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2013.12.001 [arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]]

    2014 doi arXiv

  90. [104]

    Shelton and K

    J. Shelton and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D82, 123512 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.123512 [arXiv:1008.1997 [hep-ph]]

    2010 doi arXiv

  91. [105]

    Haba and S

    N. Haba and S. Matsumoto, Prog. Theor. Phys.125, 1311-1316 (2011) doi:10.1143/PTP.125.1311 [arXiv:1008.2487 [hep-ph]]

    2011 doi arXiv

  92. [106]

    Petraki and R

    K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1330028 (2013) doi:10.1142/S0217751X13300287 [arXiv:1305.4939 [hep-ph]]

    2013 doi arXiv

  93. [107]

    Fukugita and T

    M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B174, 45-47 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(86)91126-3

    1986 doi

  94. [108]

    Nemevšek and Y

    M. Nemevšek and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D109, no.5, 056021 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.056021 [arXiv:2312.00129 [hep-ph]]

    2024 doi

  95. [109]

    Iršič, M

    V. Iršič, M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, J. S. Bolton, S. Cristiani, G. Cupani, T. S. Kim, V. D’Odorico, S. López and S. Ellison,et al.Phys. Rev. D96, no.2, 023522 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023522 [arXiv:1702.01764 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  96. [111]

    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

  97. [112]

    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

  98. [113]

    D. J. Weir, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376, no.2114, 20170126 (2018) [erratum: Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A381, no.2258, 20230212 (2023)] doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0126 [arXiv:1705.01783 [hep-ph]]

    2018 doi

  99. [114]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.35, no.16, 163001 (2018) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aac608 [arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  100. [115]

    Mazumdar and G

    A. Mazumdar and G. White, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, no.7, 076901 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ab1f55 [arXiv:1811.01948 [hep-ph]]

    2019 doi

  101. [116]

    M. B. Hindmarsh, M. Lüben, J. Lumma and M. Pauly, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes24, 1 (2021) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.24 [arXiv:2008.09136 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 doi

  102. [117]

    M. S. Turner, E. J. Weinberg and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D46, 2384-2403 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2384 46

    1992 doi

  103. [118]

    Megevand and S

    A. Megevand and S. Ramirez, Nucl. Phys. B919, 74-109 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.03.009 [arXiv:1611.05853 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2017 doi arXiv

  104. [120]

    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 arXiv

  105. [121]

    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

  106. [122]

    Apreda, M

    R. Apreda, M. Maggiore, A. Nicolis and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B631, 342-368 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(02)00264-X [arXiv:gr-qc/0107033 [gr-qc]]

    2002 doi arXiv

  107. [123]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept.331, 283-367 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00102-7 [arXiv:gr-qc/9909001 [gr-qc]]

    2000 doi arXiv

  108. [124]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2026-2029 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2026

    2026 doi

  109. [125]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D47, 4372-4391 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.4372 [arXiv:astro-ph/9211004 [astro-ph]]

    1993 doi arXiv

  110. [126]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D77, 124015 (2008) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124015 [arXiv:0711.2593 [astro-ph]]

    2008 doi arXiv

  111. [128]

    Cutting, M

    D. Cutting, M. Hindmarsh and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D97, no.12, 123513 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123513 [arXiv:1802.05712 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 doi arXiv

  112. [129]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 041301 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.041301 [arXiv:1304.2433 [hep-ph]]

    2014 doi arXiv

  113. [130]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D92, no.12, 123009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123009 [arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 doi arXiv

  114. [131]

    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

  115. [132]

    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

  116. [135]

    Kosowsky, A

    A. Kosowsky, A. Mack and T. Kahniashvili, Phys. Rev. D66, 024030 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.024030 [arXiv:astro-ph/0111483 [astro-ph]]

    2002 doi arXiv

  117. [137]

    Roper Pol, S

    A. Roper Pol, S. Mandal, A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili and A. Kosowsky, Phys. Rev. D102, no.8, 083512 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083512 [arXiv:1903.08585 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 doi

  118. [138]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin and J. van de Vis, JCAP07, no.07, 057 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/07/057 [arXiv:2004.06995 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 doi

  119. [140]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline, Phys. Rev. D106, no.2, 023501 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023501 [arXiv:2204.13120 [hep-ph]]

    2022 doi

  120. [141]

    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

  121. [143]

    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]]. 48

    2017 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed June 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.