Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

This paper shows that hidden-sector magnetic monopoles produced by a second-order thermal phase transition overclose the Universe unless the symmetry-breaking scale is below roughly 100 PeV, with the bound depending only weakly on how littl

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:09 UTC pith:D7J3SDGZ

load-bearing objection Solid new application of Kibble-Zurek + Preskill to thermally isolated hidden sectors; the 100 PeV bound is real for second-order transitions but the abstract overstates its universality. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20843 v1 pith:D7J3SDGZ submitted 2026-07-23 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Dark Monopoles, Bounds on Hidden Sectors, and Cosmological Implications

Donald Liveoak , Anshuman Maharana , James D. Wells This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords dark monopoleshidden sectorsmagnetic monopolesKibble-Zurek mechanismmonopole annihilationoverclosure boundcosmological constraintsstring hidden sectors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper asks whether hidden-sector magnetic monopoles, generically produced when a hidden gauge symmetry breaks in the early Universe, can survive annihilation and dominate the present energy density. It argues that they do: for any hidden sector with a symmetry-breaking scale above about 100 PeV, the monopolonium abundance after annihilation exceeds the critical density, overclosing the Universe. The bound is nearly independent of the inflaton branching ratio into the hidden sector, scaling only as B^(1/4), so tuning down the hidden sector's energy share cannot rescue the scenario. The result tightens substantially when there are many hidden sectors. The only ways out, the authors argue, are no such sectors, no monopoles above 100 PeV, a maximum hidden-sector temperature below the symmetry-breaking scale, or a period of early matter domination that dilutes the monopoles.

Core claim

The central claim is that, in a standard cosmological history, hidden-sector monopoles produced by a Kibble-Zurek mechanism at a second-order phase transition overclose the Universe unless the hidden-sector symmetry-breaking scale vhat is below about 100 PeV. The comoving monopole abundance is set by the competition between Kibble-Zurek production and Coulomb-capture annihilation, and the final relic density is given by Omega_M = 0.382 (vhat/100 PeV)^2 (B/10^-3)^(1/4) (b/10)^-1 (e/0.2)^4 (g_vis/200)^(-1/4) (g_hid/200)^(-1/4). Because Omega_M depends on the branching ratio B only through B^(1/4), even B as small as 10^-9 only raises the allowed scale to about 560 PeV. With N identical hidden

What carries the argument

The central object is the monopole overclosure integral: the Boltzmann equation for monopole number density is integrated from the Kibble-Zurek initial condition n_M ~ xi(t*)^(-3) ~ lambda H(T_c) T_c^2, with annihilation driven by diffusive Coulomb capture in a thermal bath of hidden-sector fermions and gauge bosons, until capture freezes out. The key identity is the analytic relic-density formula (Eq. 25), which turns the production and annihilation physics into a single power-law relation between Omega_M and vhat, B, b, e, and the effective degrees of freedom. The mechanism that makes the bound strong is the weak B-dependence: B^(1/4) means that even extremely small energy shares in the hi

Load-bearing premise

The production estimate assumes a second-order phase transition with exactly one monopole per Kibble-Zurek correlation volume at freeze-out; if the transition is first-order or the correlation length is parametrically larger, the 100 PeV bound weakens.

What would settle it

A lattice computation of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism for a hidden SU(2) theory with vhat = 10^8 GeV, e = 0.2, lambda = 0.1, and standard reheating, showing a monopole abundance low enough to give Omega_M < 0.1, would refute the claimed overclosure bound.

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

If this is right

  • If the bound is correct, any UV completion that generically produces hidden sectors—such as string compactifications—must either keep all monopole-producing symmetry-breaking scales below about 100 PeV or provide a subsequent dilution mechanism.
  • The bound cannot be evaded by making the hidden sector very weakly coupled to the inflaton; B must be tuned by many orders of magnitude to shift the allowed scale by even a factor of a few.
  • With N identical hidden sectors, the allowed symmetry-breaking scale shrinks by N^(3/8), so the constraint becomes dramatically stronger in models predicting many hidden sectors.
  • The standard cosmological history is only consistent if one of four conditions holds: no monopole-producing hidden sectors above 100 PeV, hidden-sector temperatures never reach the symmetry-breaking scale, the sectors are fine-tuned to have very small electric charge (e << 0.1) with abundant charged fermions, or an early matter-dominated epoch dilutes the relics.
  • A scenario with no light hidden fermions is even more restrictive: the bound drops to about 10 PeV, since annihilation is less efficient without fermion-catalyzed capture.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's logic extends beyond magnetic monopoles to any stable topological defect produced by a hidden-sector phase transition (e.g., cosmic strings or domain walls) if its annihilation is inefficient; the same overclosure pressure would apply with modified scaling.
  • One could test the Kibble-Zurek initial-condition assumption directly with lattice simulations of an SU(2) hidden sector with vhat around 10^8 GeV, measuring the monopole number density and its scaling with quench time; a parametrically larger correlation length would soften the bound.
  • The N^(3/4) enhancement suggests that constraints on specific string constructions should be recast statistically: even if each individual hidden sector is safe, the probability that all are safe falls sharply with the number of sectors.
  • The bound could be inverted to constrain inflationary reheating: a future observation of a hidden sector with vhat > 100 PeV and no dilution would imply either a first-order transition or an exotic thermal history.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the cosmological abundance of magnetic monopoles in a hidden sector that is thermally isolated from the visible sector and populated by inflaton decays with branching fraction B. It assumes Kibble–Zurek production at a second-order phase transition and computes annihilation through Coulomb capture catalyzed by dark fermions, gauge-boson scattering, and dark-radiation emission. The central result is Eq. (25): Ω_M = 0.382 (v̂/100 PeV)^2 (B/10^-3)^(1/4) (b/10)^-1 (e/0.2)^4 (g_vis^*/200)^(-1/4) (g_hid^*/200)^(-1/4). At fiducial parameters, this overcloses the Universe for symmetry-breaking scales above roughly 100 PeV, and since Ω_M ∝ B^(1/4), the result is insensitive to small inflaton branching fractions. The paper also derives an N^(3/4) tightening for N identical hidden sectors and lists several potential escape routes.

Significance. The paper is valuable if its regime of validity is stated precisely. The derivation from Eq. (21) to Eq. (25) is transparent, no parameter is fitted to the overclosure condition, and Eq. (25) is a ready-to-use falsifiable prediction. The numerical integration matches the analytic scalings, and the authors are candid in Section VI about the main assumptions. However, the abstract and conclusion currently advertise a sharper claim than the body supports, so the paper needs a scope-restoring revision before it can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §VIII, compared with §VI] The abstract and Section VIII state that the standard cosmology 'may only be recovered' if one of a short list of conditions holds. This is false as stated. Section VI explicitly identifies two additional escape routes: a first-order phase transition with a large percolation radius can lower the initial monopole density enough that even v̂ ≫ 100 PeV is allowed, and e ≪ 0.1 can evade the bound by making annihilation more efficient. Section VII item 1 itself contains the 'unless e≪0.1' caveat. The advertised disjunction therefore overstates the result. Please revise the abstract and conclusion to present the bound as valid for second-order Kibble–Zurek initial conditions and e ~ O(0.2), and include the first-order and small-e escapes in the summary list.
  2. [Eq. (21) and §V.A] The passage from Eq. (21) to the final abundance Eq. (25) assumes that the annihilation term dominates the initial-density term at T_vis^stop. This is true for the fiducial Kibble–Zurek initial density, but it is exactly the term that a first-order transition alters. If the initial monopole density is suppressed by a large factor, Eq. (21) reverts to 1/Y ≈ C M_pl B^(-1/4)/(λ T_c) and the overclosure bound disappears. Section VI acknowledges this, but the abstract and Section VIII do not. Please quantify the condition for the annihilation-dominated branch (e.g., a threshold on the initial-density suppression) and carry that qualification into the headline claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The intermediate expression appears to contain an algebraic typo. As written, T_vis^stop/(A C M_pl sqrt(B)) scales as B^(-3/4) when Eq. (19) is inserted, whereas the following equality and Eq. (23) require B^(1/4). The correct intermediate form should be sqrt(B) T_vis^stop/(A C M_pl), or equivalently B^(1/4) T_hid^stop/(A C M_pl). The final result is unaffected, but the displayed line is confusing.
  2. [§VII and §VIII] The escape-route lists in items 1–3 are not mutually exclusive and are ordered differently from the abstract's list. The item 1 qualification 'unless ... e≪0.1' should be featured prominently in the abstract as well, rather than only in the body.
  3. [Ref. [38]] Reference [38] is attributed to 'P. Collaboration'; it should be the Planck Collaboration. Minor copyediting issue.
  4. [§II and §VI] The homotopy notation 'π2(G/K)' should be typeset as π_2(G/K). Also, the statement that Figure 1 gives Tc ≲ 10 PeV in the no-dark-fermion case assumes e = 0.2; it would be helpful to say so in the text near the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found: Eq. (25) is a derived abundance from external Kibble-Zurek and Preskill annihilation inputs; the paper's own limitation statements (first-order transitions, small e) narrow the abstract but do not make any step tautological.

full rationale

The central prediction Eq. (25) is obtained by integrating the monopole Boltzmann equation (Eq. (7)) with the Kibble-Zurek initial density (Eq. (13), from [39,40] and [11]) and standard Preskill annihilation rates (Section IV, from [41]). The final Omega_M formula is an analytic evaluation of that integral (Eqs. (21)-(25)); it contains no parameter fitted to the overclosure condition or to Omega_DM. The inputs (B, b, e, lambda, g*) are stated assumptions, varied in Figures 1-2, not fit values. The annihilation coefficient and the production mechanism are cited to external, independent literature ([11], [39], [40], [41]), not to the present authors' prior work; hence no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The self-citations that do occur ([17], [43], [45]) support peripheral discussion (string-cosmology context, possibility of first-order transitions, string volume suppression of branching ratios) and are not needed for Eq. (25). Section VI explicitly concedes an escape route omitted from the abstract: 'In certain regions of (e, lambda) parameter space, the initial abundance of dark monopoles may be sufficiently small, even with vhat >> 100 PeV,' and the small-e escape is also acknowledged. That caveat makes the abstract's 'may only be recovered if' phrasing overbroad, but it is a statement about the domain of validity of the assumptions, not a circularity: within the assumed second-order Kibble-Zurek setup the derivation is self-contained. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' own work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on standard cosmological assumptions (radiation domination, entropy conservation), the Kibble-Zurek production estimate, and Preskill's annihilation rates, none of which are new to this paper. The final bound is sensitive to fiducial values e, b, g*, and B chosen by hand; the only genuinely new structural element is the multi-sector N^(3/4) scaling.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda (dark Higgs self-coupling) = 0.1 (fiducial)
    Fixed to 0.1 for numerical integration (Section V.B). The final abundance formula becomes independent of lambda once annihilation dominates, so the dependence is weak.
  • K (vev-to-critical-temperature normalization) = 1
    Set to unity in the relation M = K lambda T_c and vhat = K^(1/2) T_c (footnote 1, Section III). Rescales the mapping between symmetry-breaking scale and monopole mass.
  • e (hidden electric charge) = 0.2 (fiducial)
    Fiducial value in Eq. (25) and Figures 1-2. The bound on vhat scales as e^(-2), so this choice strongly affects the 100 PeV number.
  • b (charged hidden fermion degrees of freedom) = 10 (fiducial)
    Assumed Standard-Model-like hidden fermion content in Eq. (16). The bound on vhat scales as b^(1/2).
  • g*_vis, g*_hid (effective relativistic degrees of freedom) = 106.75 (fiducial)
    Set to Standard Model values in numerical integration; appears in Eq. (25) with -1/4 power, so the dependence is weak.
  • B (inflaton branching fraction into hidden sector) = 10^-3 (fiducial)
    Fiducial value used in Figures and Eq. (25); the overclosure bound on vhat scales as B^(-1/8), which is the origin of the claimed robustness.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption One topological monopole is produced per correlation volume at freeze-out: n_M ~ xi(t*)^-3 (Eq. 13).
    Load-bearing normalization of the initial monopole abundance from the Kibble-Zurek mechanism; if the actual density is parametrically smaller, the overclosure bound weakens.
  • domain assumption The hidden-sector phase transition is second-order with Landau-Ginzburg exponents nu = mu = 1/2 and xi0 = tau0 = 1/(sqrt(lambda) T_c) (Section III).
    This fixes the correlation length and hence the initial density. The paper acknowledges in Section VI that first-order transitions can produce fewer monopoles and evade the bound.
  • domain assumption Preskill monopole-antimonopole annihilation rates apply: D = h^2/(b T_h^2) for fermion-catalyzed capture plus a dark-bremsstrahlung term (Eqs. 18, 28-30).
    The final relic density depends directly on these rates and stopping temperatures; they are taken from Refs. [41,42] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The hidden sector is thermally isolated from the visible sector but self-thermalized, with separate entropy conservation and radiation domination; T_hid/T_vis ~ B^(1/4) (Eq. 5).
    Defines the cosmological background and the mapping between hidden and visible temperatures throughout the calculation.
  • domain assumption Reheating is described by a single branching ratio B, with no entropy production after reheating except standard expansion and no early matter domination.
    The bound is derived in this baseline cosmology; EMD or additional inflation are listed by the authors as escape routes.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11699 in / 17482 out tokens · 171748 ms · 2026-08-01T09:09:00.545373+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Hidden sectors are a generic prediction of string theory compactifications and result in a promising landscape for dark matter model building. We consider the case of hidden sector magnetic monopoles produced via a thermal phase transition in the early Universe and subsequently diluted by pair annihilation. We show that for symmetry-breaking scales $\gtrsim 100\, \text{PeV}$, the monopole abundance is unacceptably high, overclosing the Universe. Our bounds are robust against variations in the initial fraction of energy density deposited in the hidden sector, exhibiting only a weak power-law dependence on this quantity. The bound is substantially tightened in the case of multiple hidden sectors. The standard cosmology may only be recovered if one of the following is true: the hidden sector(s) are non-existent, the hidden sectors have no monopoles with symmetry-breaking scale above 100 PeV, the maximum temperature of each monopole-producing hidden sector after reheating is below its symmetry-breaking scale, or the monopole abundance is diluted during a period of early matter domination.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20843 by Anshuman Maharana, Donald Liveoak, James D. Wells.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The present-day relative energy density of dark monopoles, Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The present-day relative energy density of dark monopoles, Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

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

50 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The hidden sectors are severely constrained. Specifically, no hidden sector may have a spontaneous symmetry-breaking scale≳100 PeV, unless that sector is very weakly coupled (e≪0.1) and has a large spectrum of charged fermions, or has trivial second homotopy groupπ 2(G/K)

  2. [2]

    The density of hidden sector monopoles is diluted during inflation. In this case, the reheating temperature of each hidden sector must be below its respective spontaneous symmetry-breaking scale to prevent symmetry restoration and the subsequent forma- tion of monopoles via the Kibble-Zurek mechanism

  3. [3]

    For discussion of sce- narios in which relic abundances are diluted in EMD, see [15, 46]

    The Universe underwent a period of early matter domination. For discussion of sce- narios in which relic abundances are diluted in EMD, see [15, 46]. VIII. CONCLUSION In this paper, we considered the cosmological evolution of hidden sector monopoles, care- fully accounting for their non-thermal production and annihilation. We showed that the fractional en...

  4. [4]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, The waning of the wimp? a review of models, searches, and constraints, The Euro- pean Physical Journal C78, 203 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: Evidence, candidates and con- straints, Physics reports405, 279 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    J. L. Feng, Dark matter candidates from particle physics and methods of detection, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics48, 495 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, Dark matter (2025), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    D. J. Chung, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Superheavy dark matter, Physical Review D59, 023501 (1998)

    1998

  9. [9]

    Roszkowski, E

    L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Wimp dark matter candidates and searches—current status and future prospects, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 066201 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    The effective rate of monopole annihilation is determined by the flux of monopoles through a sphere of radiusa c around an antimonopole

    Thus, the typical time between large-angle scattering events isτ large-angle =m M b−1T −2 hid. The effective rate of monopole annihilation is determined by the flux of monopoles through a sphere of radiusa c around an antimonopole. As the monopole approaches the antimonopole, it acquires a drift velocity vM ∼ h2 4πa2 c τlarge-angle mM (17) and thus the ov...

  11. [11]

    D. J. Marsh, Axion cosmology, Physics Reports643, 1 (2016)

    2016

  12. [12]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, The landscape of qcd axion models, Physics Reports870, 1 (2020). 17

    2020

  13. [13]

    E. W. Kolb, D. J. Chung, and A. Riotto, Wimpzillas!, inAIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 484 (American Institute of Physics, 1999) pp. 91–105

    1999

  14. [14]

    Boyarsky, O

    A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Shaposhnikov, The role of sterile neutrinos in cosmology and astrophysics, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science59, 191 (2009)

    2009

  15. [15]

    Murayama and J

    H. Murayama and J. Shu, Topological dark matter, Physics Letters B686, 162 (2010)

    2010

  16. [16]

    V. V. Khoze and G. Ro, Dark matter monopoles, vectors and photons, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 1 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    S. Baek, P. Ko, and W.-I. Park, Hidden sector monopole, vector dark matter and dark radia- tion with higgs portal, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2014(10), 067

  18. [18]

    Br¨ ummer, G

    F. Br¨ ummer, G. Ferrante, T. Fischer, and M. Frigerio, No room for minimal monopole dark matter, Physical Review D113, L091701 (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    M. L. Graesser and J. K. Osi´ nski, Hidden Sector Monopole Dark Matter with Matter Domi- nation, JHEP11, 133, arXiv:2007.07917 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  20. [20]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. As- trophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Cicoli, J

    M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon, A. Maharana, S. Parameswaran, F. Quevedo, and I. Zavala, String cosmology: From the early universe to today, Phys. Rept.1059, 1 (2024), arXiv:2303.04819 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    A. H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  23. [23]

    Giedt, Completion of standard model like embeddings, Annals Phys.289, 251 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0009104

    J. Giedt, Completion of standard model like embeddings, Annals Phys.289, 251 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0009104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  24. [24]

    K. R. Dienes, M. Lennek, D. Senechal, and V. Wasnik, Supersymmetry versus Gauge Symme- try on the Heterotic Landscape, Phys. Rev. D75, 126005 (2007), arXiv:0704.1320 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    L. B. Anderson, A. Constantin, J. Gray, A. Lukas, and E. Palti, A Comprehensive Scan for Heterotic SU(5) GUT models, JHEP01, 047, arXiv:1307.4787 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    Cvetic, T

    M. Cvetic, T. Li, and T. Liu, Supersymmetric Pati-Salam models from intersecting D6-branes: A Road to the standard model, Nucl. Phys. B698, 163 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0403061. 18

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Gmeiner, R

    F. Gmeiner, R. Blumenhagen, G. Honecker, D. Lust, and T. Weigand, One in a billion: MSSM-like D-brane statistics, JHEP01, 004, arXiv:hep-th/0510170

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    G. J. Loges and G. Shiu, 134 billion intersecting brane models, JHEP12, 097, arXiv:2206.03506 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Marchesano, G

    F. Marchesano, G. Shiu, and T. Weigand, The Standard Model from String Theory: What Have We Learned?, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.74, 113 (2024), arXiv:2401.01939 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Taylor and Y.-N

    W. Taylor and Y.-N. Wang, A Monte Carlo exploration of threefold base geometries for 4d F-theory vacua, JHEP01, 137, arXiv:1510.04978 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    T. P. T. Dijkstra, L. R. Huiszoon, and A. N. Schellekens, Supersymmetric standard model spectra from RCFT orientifolds, Nucl. Phys. B710, 3 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411129

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    B. S. Acharya, S. A. R. Ellis, G. L. Kane, B. D. Nelson, and M. J. Perry, The lightest visible- sector supersymmetric particle is likely to be unstable, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 181802 (2016), arXiv:1604.05320 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Hebecker and J

    A. Hebecker and J. March-Russell, The Ubiquitous throat, Nucl. Phys. B781, 99 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0607120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  34. [34]

    Witten, Symmetry breaking patterns in superstring models, Nucl

    E. Witten, Symmetry breaking patterns in superstring models, Nucl. Phys. B258, 75 (1985)

    1985

  35. [35]

    Shiu and L.-T

    G. Shiu and L.-T. Wang, D matter, Phys. Rev. D69, 126007 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0311228

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Lebedev, H

    O. Lebedev, H. P. Nilles, S. Raby, S. Ramos-Sanchez, M. Ratz, P. K. S. Vaudrevange, and A. Wingerter, A Mini-landscape of exact MSSM spectra in heterotic orbifolds, Phys. Lett. B 645, 88 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0611095

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  37. [37]

    Lebedev, H

    O. Lebedev, H. P. Nilles, S. Raby, S. Ramos-Sanchez, M. Ratz, P. K. S. Vaudrevange, and A. Wingerter, The Heterotic Road to the MSSM with R parity, Phys. Rev. D77, 046013 (2008), arXiv:0708.2691 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    A. R. Frey, R. J. Danos, and J. M. Cline, Warped Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter, JHEP11, 102, arXiv:0908.1387 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    Berasaluce-Gonzalez, L

    M. Berasaluce-Gonzalez, L. E. Ibanez, P. Soler, and A. M. Uranga, Discrete gauge symmetries in D-brane models, JHEP12, 113, arXiv:1106.4169 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Halverson, B

    J. Halverson, B. D. Nelson, and F. Ruehle, String Theory and the Dark Glueball Problem, Phys. Rev. D95, 043527 (2017), arXiv:1609.02151 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

    Halverson and P

    J. Halverson and P. Langacker, TASI Lectures on Remnants from the String Landscape, PoS T ASI2017, 019 (2018), arXiv:1801.03503 [hep-th]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Collaboration, Y

    P. Collaboration, Y. Akrami, E. Keihanen, K. Kiiveri, and H. Kurki-Suonio, Planck 2018 results: Vii. isotropy and statistics of the cmb, EDP sciences2020, 09 (2020)

    2018

  43. [43]

    T. W. Kibble, Topology of cosmic domains and strings, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  44. [44]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in superfluid helium?, Nature317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  45. [45]

    J. P. Preskill, Cosmological production of superheavy magnetic monopoles, Physical Review Letters43, 1365 (1979)

    1979

  46. [46]

    V. V. Khoze and G. Ro, Dark matter monopoles, vectors and photons, JHEP10, 061, arXiv:1406.2291 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Grojean, G

    C. Grojean, G. Servant, and J. D. Wells, First-order electroweak phase transition in the standard model with a low cutoff, Phys. Rev. D71, 036001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0407019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    Cicoli, I

    M. Cicoli, I. Garc ` ıa-Etxebarria, C. Mayrhofer, F. Quevedo, P. Shukla, and R. Valandro, Global Orientifolded Quivers with Inflation, JHEP11, 134, arXiv:1706.06128 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    B. S. Acharya, A. Maharana, and F. Muia, Hidden Sectors in String Theory: Kinetic Mixings, Fifth Forces and Quintessence, JHEP03, 048, arXiv:1811.10633 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    B. S. Acharya, M. Fairbairn, and E. Hardy, Glueball dark matter in non-standard cosmologies, JHEP07, 100, arXiv:1704.01804 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv