Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

GUT-like symmetry breaking forms biased domain walls with monopoles that absorb one another, shed new monopoles when walls collapse, and leave fewer survivors when the bias is weak.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-30 10:42 UTC pith:7A3MSUCD

load-bearing objection First thermal lattice look at simultaneous biased walls and monopoles in a GUT-like model; the flat-space dynamics are real, the cosmological punchlines are not yet earned. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.27158 v1 pith:7A3MSUCD submitted 2026-07-29 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Outcomes of Grand Unified Symmetry Breaking

Harish Hemming , Tanmay Vachaspati , Anja Wachowitz This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords grand unified theoriesmagnetic monopolesbiased domain wallssymmetry breakingthermal lattice simulationsmonopole problemgravitational wavesmagnetically charged black holes
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.

This paper asks what actually happens when a Grand Unified Theory breaks its symmetry in a hot early universe: do you get only the classic magnetic monopoles, or a messier network that can change the monopole count? Using a smaller SU(3) model that still produces both monopoles and nearly Z2-symmetric domain walls, the authors cool a thermal lattice and watch the defects form and interact. They find biased walls for a range of bias strengths, monopoles getting absorbed onto walls, and—crucially—new monopole–antimonopole pairs created when magnetically charged walls collapse. Weaker bias keeps walls around longer and leaves fewer monopoles at late times; stronger bias kills walls faster and leaves more collapse-produced monopoles. If that picture survives cosmic expansion and gravity, the GUT epoch could leave magnetically charged black holes and a high-frequency gravitational-wave background, not just a monopole problem.

Core claim

In thermal simulations of an SU(3) adjoint scalar theory with a small cubic bias ϵ, symmetry breaking produces both biased domain walls and magnetic monopoles. Wall–monopole dynamics include absorption of monopoles on walls, production of (often clustered) monopoles when magnetically charged walls annihilate, and a clear trend that smaller ϵ yields fewer surviving monopoles while larger ϵ yields more monopoles from wall collapse. The paper presents this as a richer outcome of GUT-like breaking than the classic monopole-only picture, with possible routes to magnetically charged black holes and a stochastic gravitational-wave signal once gravity is included.

What carries the argument

An SU(3) gauge theory with an adjoint scalar and a potential that includes a small ϵ Tr(Φ³) bias plus six-dimensional operators choosing SU(3)→U(2). Thermal initial conditions on a 300³ lattice are cooled with a charge-conserving damping term; monopoles are found by local minima of Tr(Φ²) plus topological winding on an unbroken SU(2) block, and wall area by sign flips of Tr(Φ³).

Load-bearing premise

That non-expanding flat-space runs on a periodic lattice with a chosen damping term are a reliable guide to how efficiently walls would sweep monopoles in the real expanding early universe.

What would settle it

Repeat the same thermal SU(3) runs in an expanding cosmology (or a controlled expansion proxy) across the same ϵ range and check whether the late-time monopole density still falls with smaller ϵ, or whether expansion stretches walls enough to reverse or erase that trend.

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

If this is right

  • Weaker GUT-scale Z2 bias can leave fewer free monopoles after walls die, tightening or reshaping the cosmological monopole bound.
  • Collapse of magnetically charged walls can seed clustered monopole–antimonopole pairs and residual monopole populations after the wall network is gone.
  • With gravity, charged wall collapse may form magnetically charged black holes that could contribute to dark matter.
  • Biased wall annihilation should source a stochastic gravitational-wave background whose peak frequency tracks the GUT-era collapse time.
  • GUT cosmology is not only a monopole problem: wall–monopole co-evolution becomes a joint probe via monopoles, black holes, and gravitational waves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If wall-born monopoles are strongly clustered, their annihilation rate may differ enough from the usual dilute-gas estimate that standard monopole-abundance formulas need a two-population treatment (primordial vs wall-shed).
  • A null high-frequency GW search in the band set by tann(ϵ) would bound the viable ϵ window from above even if no monopoles are ever seen directly.
  • Periodic-box lattice walls that refuse to annihilate at very small ϵ may overstate sweeping efficiency; open or expanding boxes could show earlier fragmentation and more residual monopoles.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper performs classical lattice simulations of an SU(3) gauge theory with an adjoint scalar whose potential includes a small Z2-bias term ϵ and six-dimensional operators that select SU(3)→U(2). Thermal initial conditions are cooled with a charge-conserving damping term; monopoles are identified by a multi-stage filter (Tr Φ² threshold, local minima, Tr Φ³ sign consistency, fm cut, spherical-triangle winding) and domain-wall area by Tr Φ³ sign flips. Averaging over runs, the authors report co-formation of biased walls and monopoles, absorption of monopoles on walls, production (including clustered pairs) when magnetically charged walls collapse, and an ϵ-dependent residual monopole density: smaller ϵ leaves fewer free monopoles while walls persist, whereas larger ϵ yields a post-transition monopole rise correlated with wall collapse (Sec. IV, Fig. 11). Cosmological implications—sweeping as a monopole solution, magnetically charged black holes, and a stochastic GW background—are discussed as extrapolations requiring gravity and expansion.

Significance. This is a first numerical study of GUT-like adjoint breaking that simultaneously tracks monopoles and biased walls from thermal initial conditions. The observation that walls both absorb monopoles and shed clustered monopole–antimonopole pairs on collapse is a concrete, falsifiable addition to the analytic sweeping picture of Dvali–Liu–Vachaspati and to prior wall/monopole literature. The multi-stage monopole algorithm (profile-motivated thresholds plus topological winding) and the systematic ϵ and γ scans (Figs. 11–12) are genuine technical strengths. If the reported channels survive expansion and gravity, they would open distinctive GUT-epoch signatures (residual clustered monopoles, charged PBHs, high-frequency GWs). Credit is due for honesty in Sec. V that expansion is omitted and that collapse-produced monopoles complicate a definitive solution of the monopole problem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 11] Sec. IV.A and Fig. 11 (left): the central claim that smaller ϵ yields fewer surviving monopoles via sweeping is measured while the wall network has not finished annihilating for ϵ=0, 0.002, and largely 0.004 (Fig. 11 right; text notes walls “do not fully annihilate” and may form metastable lattices under PBC). Free-monopole density is therefore counted while walls remain as sinks/hosts for magnetic charge. For ϵ≳0.006, where walls do collapse inside the run, the same figure shows a rise in monopoles correlated with collapse and clustered leftovers (Fig. 8, t=700–900). The cosmologically relevant abundance is the free density after biased walls have gone and finished shedding charge. The ϵ-ordering in Fig. 11 cannot yet be read as demonstrated net elimination in the regime needed for cosmology; Sec. V already flags the complication. Please either (i) extend small-ϵ runs (or bias) until wa
  2. [Abstract; Sec. VI] Abstract and Sec. VI list “collapse of walls with magnetic charge that can, with gravity taken into account, produce magnetically charged black holes” and “production of a stochastic gravitational wave background” among the outcomes shown by the results. Neither gravity nor GW extraction is present in the runs; these are plausible extrapolations (cited via [17,42,44,45] and the biased-wall GW literature). Please separate simulated findings from gravity-dependent conjectures in the abstract and conclusion so that the load-bearing claims match what Figs. 7–12 actually demonstrate.
  3. [Sec. V, Eqs. (29)–(31)] Sec. V, Eqs. (29)–(31): the cosmological window for ϵ_GUT assumes scaling (R∼t), radiation domination, and that tann≫t_GUT, while the simulations are flat-space, non-expanding, and (for the strongest suppression) have not reached final wall annihilation. The paper correctly notes that expansion “can have a huge influence” and plans future work. Given that, the quantitative bounds (31) should be presented only as order-of-magnitude motivation, not as a parameter range already supported by the present runs; a short statement that the simulated ϵ values are not directly mapped to ϵ_GUT would prevent over-reading.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B] Sec. III.B: monopole detection uses several numerical thresholds (Tr Φ²<0.3, f_m²<0.08, 7³ and 3³ sub-lattices). A brief sensitivity check (one alternate threshold set) or a statement that results are stable under modest variations would strengthen confidence in N_m(t).
  2. [Fig. 9] Fig. 9 is a single 100³ run while the main results use 300³ averages; please state lattice size consistently in captions and note whether the pair-creation/annihilation spikes survive volume averaging.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) and the choice d6+6λ6≳0 small are motivated but not scanned; a sentence on whether the qualitative channels (absorption vs collapse production) depend on proximity to the O(8) limit would help.
  4. [Sec. IV headings; bibliography] Typos/clarity: “V arying” and “RESUL TS” in section headings; “anitmonopole” in Sec. IV; arXiv numbers in Refs. [17] and [40] look like placeholders relative to the present submission—please verify bibliography consistency.
  5. [Sec. IV] The animation URL is helpful; consider also depositing a minimal data/plot script release so that Fig. 11 can be reproduced independently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Forward lattice experiment: ϵ and potential couplings are inputs; monopole counts and wall area are measured outputs, not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper is a classical thermal lattice study of an SU(3) adjoint model. Bias ϵ, damping γ, and the fixed potential parameters (Eq. 9) are chosen inputs that are scanned or held fixed; the reported monopole number density and domain-wall areal density (Sec. IV, Fig. 11) are algorithmic measurements on the evolved fields (winding via spherical-triangle areas; sign flips of Tr(Φ³)). Nothing in that pipeline defines the outputs in terms of the inputs or fits a parameter to data and renames a related quantity as a prediction. Prior self-citations (Dvali–Liu–Vachaspati sweeping, Pogosian–Vachaspati wall solutions, companion arXiv:2606.14996) supply model motivation and analytic profiles used only for detection thresholds, not uniqueness theorems that force the simulation outcomes. Cosmological bounds in Sec. V and black-hole/GW remarks are order-of-magnitude discussion or planned extensions with gravity/expansion omitted from the runs; they are not claimed as first-principles derivations from the lattice data. No self-definitional loop, fitted-as-prediction step, or load-bearing uniqueness import is present. Score 0 is appropriate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central numerical claim rests on a standard classical lattice Yang–Mills+adjoint-Higgs setup plus several modeling choices that stand in for full GUT cosmology: an SU(3) truncation of SU(5), a specific dimension-6 potential, a phenomenological damping term for fermion radiation, half-thermal initial conditions, no Hubble expansion, and no dynamical gravity. Free parameters are the potential couplings, bias, gauge coupling, damping, and lattice numerics. No new particles are postulated; ‘magnetically charged black holes’ and the stochastic GW background are extrapolated entities not evolved in the code.

free parameters (5)
  • ϵ (Z2 bias / Tr Φ³ coupling) = 0–0.1 (fiducial plots 0–0.01; large-ϵ control 0.1)
    Scanned by hand (0 to 0.1); controls wall lifetime and is the main experimental knob for residual monopole density.
  • Potential couplings (g, m², λ, λ6, d6) = g=0.5, m²=0.5, λ=0.75, λ6=1.0, d6=-5.9
    Fixed to Eq. (9) so that d6+6λ6 is small and VEV aligns with T8 (SU(3)→U(2)); not derived from a UV completion.
  • Damping coefficient γ = 0.6 (default)
    Phenomenological radial damping for fermion energy loss; varied 0.3–0.6, default 0.6.
  • Lattice and integrator parameters (N, dx, dt, gp2, T_init, μ) = 300³, dx=0.5, dt=dx/3, gp2=0.81, T=μ=1 (scalars)
    Numerical choices that set resolution, stability, and initial thermal spectrum.
  • Monopole/wall detection thresholds = as in Sec. III.B–C
    Tr(Φ²)<0.3, local-min filter, f_m²<0.08, |Tr(Φ³)| cuts and 7³ sublattices are algorithm hyperparameters that define what is counted as a defect.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Classical SU(3) Yang–Mills with one adjoint scalar and the given renormalizable+dim-6 potential adequately captures the topological defect content of minimal SU(5)-like GUT breaking.
    Sec. II explicitly replaces SU(5) (120 bosonic dofs) by SU(3) (40 dofs) while claiming shared monopoles and biased walls.
  • domain assumption A radial damping term F_damp ∝ −γ ϕ ∂t ln|ϕ| models fermion-induced energy loss while preserving gauge charge.
    Sec. II.A, following Zhang–Vachaspati–Ferrer; not derived from a full fermion spectrum.
  • domain assumption Half-thermal Fourier initial conditions with vanishing initial velocities, then interaction thermalization and cooling, represent a cosmological thermal phase transition.
    Sec. III.A; velocities set to zero to satisfy Gauss law, variance doubled by hand.
  • ad hoc to paper Omitting cosmic expansion and gravity does not reverse the qualitative wall–monopole channels reported.
    Sec. V admits expansion ‘can have a huge influence’ and defers it; BH/GW conclusions still appear in abstract and conclusion.
  • standard math π2(SU(3)/U(2))=Z and approximate Z2 from Φ→−Φ imply monopoles and (biased) domain walls as simulated.
    Secs. II.B–C; standard homotopy and potential analysis.
  • standard math Winding computed from spherical-triangle areas of reconstructed r-hat on plaquettes equals integer monopole charge in the continuum limit of the lattice.
    Sec. III.B; standard lattice topology method, with practical cuts that may miss or double-count near walls.
invented entities (2)
  • Magnetically charged black holes from collapse of charged domain walls no independent evidence
    purpose: Cosmological endpoint that could sequester monopole charge and contribute to dark matter.
    Abstract and Sec. VI present this as an outcome ‘with gravity taken into account,’ but gravity is not in the simulation; independent_evidence is only by reference to other PBH/DW literature.
  • Stochastic gravitational wave background from biased GUT-scale domain walls no independent evidence
    purpose: Observational handle on the GUT epoch via high-frequency GWs.
    Stated as a finding/avenue but not computed in this work; standard biased-DW GW mechanism assumed.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 22131 in / 4378 out tokens · 86367 ms · 2026-07-30T10:42:24.946679+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We numerically study the outcome of symmetry breaking motivated by Grand Unified models. Our results show the formation of biased domain walls for a range of parameters together with magnetic monopoles. The interactions of walls and monopoles leads to novel processes such as the absorption of monopoles on walls, production of monopoles when domain walls annihilate, collapse of walls with magnetic charge that can, with gravity taken into account, produce magnetically charged black holes, and production of a stochastic gravitational wave background from biased domain walls. Our findings open new avenues for probing the grand unification epoch by cosmological observables.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27158 by Anja Wachowitz, Harish Hemming, Tanmay Vachaspati.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Contour plot of potential in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Monopole profile functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Tr(Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Domain wall profile functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ) Hence any sign flip of Tr(Φ3 ) along any edge of the sub-lattice will only arise from a domain wall passing through the sub-lattice. Furthermore, once a sub-lattice has been identified using this procedure, the sign of Tr(Φ3 ) on the boundary reflects the asymptotic vacuum (+T 8 or −T 8 ). The next step involves identifying candidate cells inside the sub-lattice to compute the winding of the field and de… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plot of averaged value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Snapshots of the potential energy density for the slice at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Number of monopoles vs. time for a single run for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Plot of the number density of monopoles vs. time for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Results for our simulation for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Results for our simulation for different values of the damping parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.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

49 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In case of ϵ = 0, the domain walls are topological and stable, while for ϵ̸ = 0 the walls are non-topological and unstable

    Z2-symmetry produces domain walls. In case of ϵ = 0, the domain walls are topological and stable, while for ϵ̸ = 0 the walls are non-topological and unstable. Similar domain wall solutions have been discussed previously in [5, 7–10, 24]. For ϵ = 0, the potential has 6 minima corresponding to the three permutations of ±T 8. The domain walls interpolate bet...

  2. [2]

    Langacker and S.-Y

    P. Langacker and S.-Y. Pi, Magnetic Monopoles in Grand Unified Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 1 (1980)

    1980

  3. [3]

    direction after diagonalizing, the symmetry breaking is given by ⟨Φ⟩ ∼T3 :SU(3)→U(1)×U(1),(3) ⟨Φ⟩ ∼T8 :SU(3)→U(2).(4) We can always diagonalize the VEV to be a linear combi- nation of the diagonalT 3 andT 8 generators. The inclusion of six-dimensional terms in the potential lets us choose the symmetry breaking pattern: While the term including λ6 preserve...

  4. [4]

    triangular plaquette

    The ansatz for the domain wall configuration is Φdw(x) =g w(x)T3 +f w(x)T8,(21) with boundary conditions fw(±∞) = ±η/2, fw(0) = 0, g′ w(0) = 0 and gw(±∞) = η √ 3/2. The solution for fw(x) andg w(x) is solved numerically and shown in Fig. 5. Notice that at the center of the domain wall, the field is in the T 3 direction. Thus, the domain wall is a layer wh...

  5. [5]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    G. R. Dvali, H. Liu, and T. Vachaspati, Sweeping away the monopole problem, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2281 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  7. [7]

    Pogosian and T

    L. Pogosian and T. Vachaspati, Interaction of magnetic monopoles and domain walls, Phys. Rev. D62, 105005 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9909543

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  8. [8]

    Pogosian and T

    L. Pogosian and T. Vachaspati, Domain walls in SU(5), Phys. Rev. D62, 123506 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0007045

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  9. [9]

    Vachaspati, A Class of kinks in SU(N) x Z(2), Phys

    T. Vachaspati, A Class of kinks in SU(N) x Z(2), Phys. Rev. D63, 105010 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0102047

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [10]

    Pogosian and T

    L. Pogosian and T. Vachaspati, Space of kink solutions in SU(N) * Z(2), Phys. Rev. D64, 105023 (2001), arXiv:hep- th/0105128

    arXiv 2001

  11. [11]

    Pogosian and T

    L. Pogosian and T. Vachaspati, Domain wall lattices, Phys. Rev. D67, 065012 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0210232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  12. [12]

    N. D. Antunes, L. Pogosian, and T. Vachaspati, On for- mation of domain wall lattices, Phys. Rev. D69, 043513 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0307349

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  13. [13]

    Vachaspati, Symmetries within domain walls, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Symmetries within domain walls, Phys. Rev. D67, 125002 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0303137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  14. [14]

    Brush, L

    M. Brush, L. Pogosian, and T. Vachaspati, Magnetic monopole—domain wall collisions, Phys. Rev. D92, 045008 (2015), arXiv:1505.08170 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Vachaspati,Kinks and Domain Walls : An Introduc- tion to Classical and Quantum Solitons(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    T. Vachaspati,Kinks and Domain Walls : An Introduc- tion to Classical and Quantum Solitons(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  16. [16]

    Dvali and J

    G. Dvali and J. S. Valbuena-Berm´ udez, Erasure of strings and vortices, Phys. Rev. D107, 035001 (2023), arXiv:2212.07535 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Bachmaier, G

    M. Bachmaier, G. Dvali, and J. S. Valbuena- Berm´ udez, Radiation emission during the erasure of magnetic monopoles, Phys. Rev. D108, 103501 (2023), arXiv:2306.12958 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Senjanovi´ c and M

    G. Senjanovi´ c and M. Zantedeschi, Minimal Pati- Salam theory: From cosmic defects to gravitational waves and colliders, Phys. Rev. D112, 055018 (2025), arXiv:2504.01893 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Bachmaier,The Fate of Magnetic Monopoles in the Early Universe, Ph.D

    M. Bachmaier,The Fate of Magnetic Monopoles in the Early Universe, Ph.D. thesis, Munich U. (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    Hemming, T

    H. Hemming, T. Vachaspati, and A. Wachowitz, Domain walls and magnetic monopoles in Grand Unified Models, (2026), arXiv:2606.14996 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Vachaspati, and F. Ferrer, Magnetic field production at a first-order electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D100, 083006 (2019), arXiv:1902.02751 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    F. A. Bais and H. A. Weldon, Exact Monopole Solutions in SU(n) Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.41, 601 (1978)

    1978

  23. [23]

    Wilkinson and F

    D. Wilkinson and F. A. Bais, Exact SU(N) Monopole Solutions with Spherical Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D19, 2410 (1979)

    1979

  24. [24]

    Y. Ng, T. W. B. Kibble, and T. Vachaspati, Formation of Non-Abelian Monopoles Connected by Strings, Phys. Rev. D78, 046001 (2008), arXiv:0806.0155 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  25. [25]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  26. [26]

    W. H. Zurek, Cosmological experiments in condensed matter systems, Phys. Rept.276, 177 (1996), arXiv:cond- mat/9607135

    arXiv 1996

  27. [27]

    Pogosian, Kink interactions in SU(N) x Z(2), Phys

    L. Pogosian, Kink interactions in SU(N) x Z(2), Phys. Rev. D65, 065023 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0111206

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  28. [28]

    Vachaspati, Creation of Magnetic Monopoles in Clas- sical Scattering, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Creation of Magnetic Monopoles in Clas- sical Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 181601 (2016), arXiv:1607.07460 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Leese and T

    R. Leese and T. Prokopec, Clustering of cosmological defects at the time of formation, Phys. Lett. B260, 27 (1991)

    1991

  30. [30]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and M. Y. Khlopov, On the Concentration of Relic Magnetic Monopoles in the Universe, Phys. Lett. B79, 239 (1978)

    1978

  31. [31]

    Preskill, Cosmological Production of Superheavy Mag- netic Monopoles, Phys

    J. Preskill, Cosmological Production of Superheavy Mag- netic Monopoles, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 1365 (1979)

    1979

  32. [32]

    C. J. A. P. Martins and A. Achucarro, Evolution of local and global monopole networks, Phys. Rev. D78, 083541 (2008)

    2008

  33. [33]

    Sousa and P

    L. Sousa and P. P. Avelino, Revisiting the velocity- dependent one-scale model for monopoles, Phys. Rev. D96, 023521 (2017), arXiv:1703.09054 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Hindmarsh, A

    M. Hindmarsh, A. Lopez-Eiguren, R. Sepp¨ a, and D. J. Weir, Numerical simulations of magnetic monopole evolu- tion in an expanding universe, (2025), arXiv:2511.14204 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    N. D. Antunes and T. Vachaspati, Spontaneous formation of domain wall lattices in two spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. D70, 063516 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0404227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  36. [36]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, Gravita- tional Waves from Collapsing Domain Walls, JCAP05, 032, arXiv:1002.1555 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Saikawa, Study of gravitational radiation from cosmic domain walls, JCAP09, 008, arXiv:1102.5628 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, On the estimation of gravitational wave spectrum from cosmic do- main walls, JCAP02, 031, arXiv:1309.5001 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, Gravitational waves from domain walls in Pulsar Timing Array datasets, JCAP02, 001, arXiv:2204.04228 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Kitajima, J

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Gravitational waves from domain wall collapse, and ap- plication to nanohertz signals with QCD-coupled axions, Phys. Lett. B851, 138586 (2024), arXiv:2306.17146 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, and M. Vanvlasselaer, Domain walls in the scaling regime: Equal Time Correla- tor and Gravitational Waves, (2025), arXiv:2511.16649 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Babichev, I

    E. Babichev, I. Dankovsky, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, and A. Vikman, Biased domain walls: faster anni- hilation, weaker gravitational waves, JCAP10, 103, arXiv:2504.07902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  43. [43]

    Barbini, A

    D. Barbini, A. Notari, O. Pujol` as, F. Rompineve, and F. Torrent ´ ı, Biased Domain Wall Networks and their Gravitational Waves, (2026), arXiv:2607.18107 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Gouttenoire and E

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, Domain wall interpreta- tion of the PTA signal confronting black hole overproduc- 15 tion, Phys. Rev. D110, L061306 (2024), arXiv:2306.17841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Gouttenoire and E

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, Primordial black holes and wormholes from domain wall networks, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123507 (2024), arXiv:2311.07670 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Gouttenoire, S

    Y. Gouttenoire, S. F. King, R. Roshan, X. Wang, G. White, and M. Yamazaki, Cosmological consequences of domain walls biased by quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D112, 075007 (2025), arXiv:2501.16414 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Vachaspati, Lunar Mass Black Holes from QCD Axion Cosmology, (2017), arXiv:1706.03868 [hep-th]

    T. Vachaspati, Lunar Mass Black Holes from QCD Axion Cosmology, (2017), arXiv:1706.03868 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    Ferrer, E

    F. Ferrer, E. Masso, G. Panico, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompin- eve, Primordial Black Holes from the QCD axion, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 101301 (2019), arXiv:1807.01707 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    D. M. Jennewein, J. Lee, C. Kurtz,et al., The sol su- percomputer at arizona state university, inPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing(Association for Computing Machinery, 2023) pp. 296–301

    2023