Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Domain-wall networks scale with the particle horizon, not the Hubble rate, across early-universe equations of state.

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

2026-07-31 14:26 UTC pith:6RB4VRWP

load-bearing objection Solid lattice result: DW area scales with particle horizon (ξ≈1.2) across w, not H⁻¹; near-peak GW fits are usable, IR/UV EoS dependence is real but secondary. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28214 v1 pith:6RB4VRWP submitted 2026-07-30 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th

Domain walls through different cosmologies

I. Dankovsky , D. Gorbunov , S. Ramazanov , A. Vikman This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th
keywords domain wallsgravitational wavesearly universe cosmologyequation of statelattice simulationsparticle horizonscaling regimestochastic background
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 how cosmic domain walls evolve when the early universe is not radiation-dominated, but filled with dust, stiff matter, or almost Minkowski space. Lattice simulations of a double-well scalar show that the wall area inside a large volume is set almost entirely by the particle horizon: the area parameter stays near 1.2 for ordinary decelerating cosmologies and only creeps up to about 1.4 as one approaches flat space. That means the network’s correlation length—and therefore the peak wavelength of the gravitational waves it emits—is fixed by the light-travel distance, not by the inverse Hubble rate. Closed walls do proliferate when expansion is weaker, but they remain a small fraction of the total area. Gravitational-wave spectra from annihilating walls do feel the equation of state in the infrared slope and in a ultraviolet plateau that grows with stiffer matter; near the peak, however, the shape is only weakly sensitive. The authors supply concrete fitting formulae for that near-peak region for several cosmologies relevant to pulsar-timing and other stochastic-background searches.

Core claim

Domain-wall network evolution is approximately universal across constant equations of state from dust through stiff matter: the comoving wall area obeys S = 2ξV/τ with ξ confined to 1.2–1.4 (≈1.2 for most O(1) w). Consequently the particle horizon l = aτ, not H^{-1}, sets the correlation length and the characteristic gravitational-wave wavelength (k_peak ≈ 2π/τ for stable walls).

What carries the argument

The area (scaling) parameter ξ ≡ Sτ/(2V), measured on the lattice with the Press–Ryden–Spergel estimator. Its near-constancy across w converts the geometric statement “area scales with particle horizon” into a quantitative, cosmology-independent law that also fixes the peak of the gravitational-wave spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The wall field is assumed never to interact with the surrounding plasma and to feel no thermal corrections, so the network forms solely when the Hubble rate falls below the particle mass.

What would settle it

A high-resolution lattice run that includes a realistic thermal mass or friction term and finds ξ departing from the 1.2–1.4 window, or a measured stochastic-background spectrum whose near-peak shape cannot be fit by the supplied formulae for any constant w.

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

If this is right

  • Peak frequencies of gravitational waves from stable domain walls should be read as inverse particle horizon, not 2πaH, whenever w ≠ 1/3.
  • Infrared spectral index of waves from annihilating walls is n_IR = 4 − 2ν (with a double-log correction at kination), offering a diagnostic of the early equation of state if the deep infrared is accessible.
  • Near-peak fitting formulae supplied for radiation, kination and w = 5/3 can be used directly in pulsar-timing and LISA forecasts with only weak residual w-dependence.
  • In an accelerating universe the same logic suggests replacing the particle horizon by the finite “domain-wall horizon” measured from network formation, so wall energy density redshifts as 1/a.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the ultraviolet plateau is truly sourced by scalar radiation or small closed walls, its height should change when the wall particles are allowed to decay, giving a clean numerical test.
  • The same horizon-driven scaling may apply to other discrete-symmetry defects (e.g., Z_N walls) once the closed-wall fraction remains sub-dominant.
  • A detection of a stochastic background whose infrared slope matches 4 − 2ν for some w > 1/3 would simultaneously confirm both annihilating domain walls and a stiff early epoch.

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 uses CosmoLattice simulations of a real scalar in a double-well potential to study domain-wall (DW) networks across constant-w cosmologies from dust (w=0) through stiff matter to near-Minkowski (large w). The central claim is an approximate universality of the area parameter: the comoving wall area in a large volume obeys S=2ξV/τ with ξ confined to 1.2–1.4 (≈1.2 for most O(1) w), so the particle horizon l=aτ—not H^{-1}—sets the network correlation length and the characteristic GW wavelength (k_peak≈2π/τ for stable walls). Closed walls grow with w but remain a small fraction of the total area. For annihilating (biased) walls the IR GW slope depends on w, a UV plateau strengthens as w increases, and near-peak spectra are only weakly EoS-dependent; fitting formulae (ansatz Eq. 47) are supplied for selected cosmologies, including a 4096³ RD run.

Significance. If the measured scaling law and the particle-horizon interpretation hold, they cleanly reorganize DW phenomenology beyond radiation domination and directly affect peak-frequency predictions used in PTA and future interferometer analyses. The work supplies concrete near-peak GW fits for several primordial EoS, multi-resolution lattice evidence (1024³–4096³) with explicit box criteria (κ,κ′), an IR/UV gluing procedure, and analytic IR asymptotics from the Bessel Green’s function that recover the expected causality structure (including a double-log correction at kination). Consistency checks with melting walls / Minkowski and with closed-wall fractions strengthen the result. These are useful, falsifiable outputs for the stochastic-GW community.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (47), Fig. 6] §5.2 and Figs. 5–7: The advertised near-peak fitting formulae (Eq. 47) are a main phenomenological deliverable, yet the kination fit reports χ²_ν=16.5 (N_dof=62). That is a poor fit; either the ansatz is inadequate for w=1, the gluing/averaging procedure leaves residual systematics, or the quoted parameter errors are understated. The manuscript should either improve the ansatz / data reduction until χ²_ν is acceptable or clearly demote the w=1 formula to a qualitative guide and state the limited reliability for PTA-style template use.
  2. [§3, Eqs. (16)–(18), Fig. 1] §3 and Eq. (18): The universal value ξ≈1.2 is obtained with the specific IR-suppressed initial conditions (16) chosen to mitigate finite-box artifacts (as in Ref. [15]). Literature vacuum-IC results give ξ≈0.85. While the paper argues 1.2 is the physical value, residual IC and estimator dependence (the Press–Ryden–Spergel area estimator can overestimate by ~3/2; acknowledged after Eq. 17) still affect absolute comparisons to VOS/mean-field work (Refs. [13,14]). A short, explicit cross-check—e.g., one alternate IC set or a corrected estimator—across at least two w values would make the absolute ξ claim more robust for the universality statement.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (39)–(42)] §4, Eqs. (39)–(40) vs. Refs. [41,42]: The derived IR index n_IR=4−2ν (and the double-log at w=1) disagrees with the earlier formula n_IR=(1+15w)/(1+3w) for w≥1, and the Minkowski limits differ (k³ vs k⁵). The Green’s-function argument looks correct, but the discrepancy is load-bearing for the claimed EoS dependence of the deep IR. A compact derivation appendix or an explicit numerical check of the superhorizon tail (even if only for stable walls, Eq. 42) would settle whether prior results missed the log/Minkowski limit or whether an assumption differs.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, §6] Footnote 1 and §6: The restriction that the particle horizon is computed only over the constant-w epoch is important when extrapolating to accelerated expansion (l_dw). State this restriction once in the main text near Eq. (20), not only in a footnote and the conclusions.
  2. [§5.1, Figs. 3–4] Figs. 3–4: Twin-peak structure and the statement that only the left peak is physical are clear in the text but easy to miss on the plots. Mark the physical peak (and the artificial UV lattice peak) explicitly in the figure legends or with vertical guides.
  3. [§2] Eq. (11) vs. Eq. (14): Two expressions for τ_max appear (Hubble-based vs horizon-based). A single sentence stating which is used for each production run would avoid confusion when reproducing the lattices.
  4. Typographical / notation: “FLR W” → “FLRW”; occasional missing spaces before citations; ν in Eq. (31) uses absolute values that make the w→∞ limit transparent—worth a one-line remark.
  5. [§5.2] §5.2 plateau discussion: The composite-scale hypothesis k_*~4π a(τ_ann)√(H/δ_wall) is interesting but qualitative. Even a single scaling check (vary δ_wall or ϵ at fixed w) would help the reader judge whether the plateau is a genuine scaling violation or a secondary effect of closed walls / scalar radiation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: universality of ξ and k_peak≈2π/τ are lattice measurements; IR slopes follow standard Green’s-function asymptotics; near-peak formulae are openly post-hoc fits.

full rationale

The central claim is empirical, not definitional. The area parameter is defined as ξ≡Sτ/(2V) (Eq. 18) and then measured on 1024³/2048³ lattices across w (Fig. 1); the contentful statement is that the measured ξ settles in the narrow range 1.2–1.4 (≈1.2 for O(1) w), so S≈2ξV/τ with particle horizon l=aτ setting the correlation length. That is an output of the estimator (17) and the runs, not forced by the definition of ξ. Peak location k_peak≈2π/τ (Eq. 45, Figs. 3–4) is likewise read off simulated spectra. The IR index n_IR=4−2ν (Eqs. 39–40) is derived from small-argument Bessel asymptotics of the standard TT Green’s function under causality (P independent of k for kτ≪1); no target slope is fitted. Near-peak GW formulae (ansatz 47 with free a,b,c) are explicitly labelled fitting formulae for simulated spectra, not first-principles predictions. Self-citations ([15], [18], [23], [32]) supply methodology, IC choice, and RD cross-checks; none is a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives or that alone forces the multi-w universality result. Neglect of plasma/thermal corrections is an acknowledged model limitation, not an internal circular reduction. Derivation chain is self-contained lattice + standard GR wave equation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central universality claim is an empirical output of classical lattice field theory in FLRW with a fixed double-well potential and a barotropic background. Load-bearing inputs are standard GR+scalar-field assumptions, a handful of numerical knobs (initial-spectrum temperature T, box parameters κ/κ′, bias ϵ), and the modeling choice to drop plasma interactions and thermal mass corrections. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • T (initial-condition temperature in A(k), B(k)) = ≈1.7
    Hand-chosen ≈1.7 to suppress IR modes and reduce finite-box artifacts; scaling is argued to be independent of ICs but the concrete runs use this value.
  • κ, κ′ (lattice resolution / box-size parameters) = κ∈{1,5}, κ′∈{π/12, π/2, 2π}
    Chosen by hand (typically κ=1 or 5, κ′=π/2, 2π, or π/12) to keep wall width resolved and network inside the box; different pairs used for IR vs UV GW reconstruction.
  • ϵ (bias parameter for annihilating walls) = 0.025
    Fixed at 0.025 for the GW annihilation runs that produce the near-peak fits; not scanned systematically in this work.
  • a, b, c (near-peak GW spectrum fit ansatz Eq. 47) = w=1/3: a=2.6±0.2, b=0.85±0.01, c=0.9±0.1; similar for w=1 and 5/3
    Three free exponents/amplitudes fitted separately for each w to the simulated Ω_gw(k) near the peak; reported with 1σ errors but are phenomenological, not derived.
  • C (source power-spectrum prefactor in Eq. 41)
    Constant in the assumed P(k,τ1,τ2)≈C(τ1τ2)^{3/2} used to derive the stable-wall IR spectrum; treated as cosmology-independent but not measured from the lattice here.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW background filled with a single barotropic fluid of constant w, with DWs strictly sub-dominant at all times.
    Stated in §1–2 and Eq. (1); excludes DW-dominated eras and multi-component or time-varying EoS.
  • domain assumption Scalar dynamics given exactly by the classical double-well Lagrangian (3) with no couplings to other plasma fields and no thermal corrections.
    Explicitly declared after Eq. (3) in §2; formation criterion is purely H < m_χ.
  • ad hoc to paper Particle horizon relevant to DW evolution is computed only over the epoch of constant w, excluding earlier history (footnote 1).
    Used to identify l=aτ as the correlation length; standard full-history horizon would differ if a prior epoch existed.
  • domain assumption Causality implies the unequal-time source power spectrum P(k,τ1,τ2) is k-independent for superhorizon modes, and the simple scaling form (41) holds for stable walls.
    Invoked in §4 to derive IR indices (39)–(40) and the stable-wall spectrum (42); standard in the GW-from-phase-transitions literature.
  • domain assumption Classical lattice field theory with the Press–Ryden–Spergel-style area estimator (17) faithfully measures continuum wall area up to an O(1) factor.
    Estimator introduced in §3; possible 3/2 overestimate acknowledged via Refs. [30,31] but not corrected.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 26075 in / 4020 out tokens · 79824 ms · 2026-07-31T14:26:58.505508+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study properties of domain walls (DWs) arising in the model with a double well potential assuming different early universe cosmologies: from dust through stiff matter domination to the limit of effective Minkowski space. Using lattice simulations we demonstrate that evolution of DW networks exhibits an approximate universality with respect to the cosmological equation of state (EoS). Namely, the wall area inside a given large volume is mainly determined by the particle horizon, while details of cosmic expansion play a subdominant role. As it follows, particle horizon rather than the inverse Hubble rate is pivotal in DW evolution defining the network correlation length and hence its phenomenology, e.g., the characteristic wavelength of emitted gravitational waves (GWs). Formation of closed DWs is shown to be very sensitive to the cosmological EoS and hence violate the universality, but their contribution to the total network is too small to change the overall picture. The universality breaking is also observed in the spectral properties of GWs from annihilating (biased) DWs: i) the IR slope of the spectrum depends on the EoS parameter; ii) there is a plateau in the UV part of the spectrum, which gets more pronounced as one stiffens the EoS. However, the dependence on the EoS is rather weak in the near peak region, which is most relevant from the viewpoint of pulsar timing arrays and other searches for the stochastic GW background. For a selection of primordial cosmologies, we provide fitting formulae for the spectra near the peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28214 by A. Vikman, D. Gorbunov, I. Dankovsky, S. Ramazanov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The area parameter ξ defined in Eq. (18) is demonstrated for different cosmologies characterized by the constant EoS parameter w. The simulations have been carried out with 10243 lattice, except for the cases marked with an asterisk, where the 20483 lattice has been used. where the summation is over the pairs of lattice grid points; ∆x is the comoving distance between two neighboring lattice sites. One set… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The ratio of closed walls to the long wall surface areas is demonstrated assuming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: GW spectra from stable DWs produced with 1024 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GW spectra from stable DWs produced with 1024 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: GW spectra from annihilating DWs reconstructed with 4096 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: GW spectra from annihilating DWs reconstructed with 2048 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: GW spectra from annihilating DWs reconstructed with 2048 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: GW spectra from annihilating DWs described by the bias parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.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

47 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67(1974), 3-11 SLAC-TRANS-0165

    1974

  2. [2]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9(1976), 1387-1398

    1976

  3. [3]

    W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J.347(1989), 590-604

    1989

  4. [4]

    Garagounis and M

    T. Garagounis and M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. D68(2003), 103506; [arXiv:hep- ph/0212359 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki and K. Saikawa, JCAP02(2014), 031; [arXiv:1309.5001 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti and W. Valkenburg, JCAP04(2021), 035; [arXiv:2006.15122 [astro-ph.CO]]. 4https://www.it4i.cz/en/infrastructure/karolina 26

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti and W. Valkenburg, Comput. Phys. Commun. 283(2023), 108586; [arXiv:2102.01031 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Baeza-Ballesteros, D

    J. Baeza-Ballesteros, D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, J. Lizarraga, N. Loayza, K. Marschall, T. Opferkuch, B. A. Stefanek, F. Torrent ´ ı and A. Urio, [arXiv:2512.15627 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  9. [9]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase and M. Vanvlasselaer, JCAP06(2026), 053; [arXiv:2511.16649 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    P. P. Avelino, C. J. A. P. Martins and J. C. R. E. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D72(2005), 083506; [arXiv:hep-ph/0507272 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    A. M. M. Leite and C. J. A. P. Martins, Phys. Rev. D84(2011), 103523; [arXiv:1110.3486 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    A. M. M. Leite, C. J. A. P. Martins and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Lett. B718(2013), 740-744; [arXiv:1206.6043 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  13. [13]

    C. J. A. P. Martins, I. Y. Rybak, A. Avgoustidis and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) no.4, 043534; [arXiv:1602.01322 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Hindmarsh, Phys

    M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996), 4495-4498; [arXiv:hep-ph/9605332 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  15. [15]

    Dankovsky, S

    I. Dankovsky, S. Ramazanov, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 112(2025) no.12, 123521 [arXiv:2509.25367 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    R. Z. Ferreira, S. Gasparotto, T. Hiramatsu, I. Obata and O. Pujolas, JCAP05(2024), 066; [arXiv:2312.14104 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Gr¨ uber, L

    D. Gr¨ uber, L. Sousa and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D110(2024) no.2, 023505; [arXiv:2403.09816 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Dankovsky, E

    I. Dankovsky, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov and A. Vikman, JCAP09 (2024), 047; [arXiv:2406.17053 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Lazanu, C

    A. Lazanu, C. J. A. P. Martins and E. P. S. Shellard, Phys. Lett. B747(2015), 426-432; [arXiv:1505.03673 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Kitajima, J

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi and W. Yin, Phys. Lett. B851(2024), 138586; [arXiv:2306.17146 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    B. Cyr, S. Cotterill and R. Battye, Phys. Rev. D113(2026) no.4, 043549; [arXiv:2504.02076 [astro-ph.CO]]. 27

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Notari, F

    A. Notari, F. Rompineve and F. Torrenti, JCAP07(2025), 049; [arXiv:2504.03636 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Babichev, I

    E. Babichev, I. Dankovsky, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov and A. Vikman, JCAP10 (2025), 103; [arXiv:2504.07902 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Barbini, A

    D. Barbini, A. Notari, O. Pujol` as, F. Rompineve and F. Torrent ´ ı, [arXiv:2607.18107 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujol` as and F. Rompineve, JCAP06(2024), 020; [arXiv:2401.14331 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase and A. Sevrin, JHEP11(2023), 169; [arXiv:2306.17830 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    D. P. Filippov and A. A. Kirillov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.88(2025) no.3, 540-545 [arXiv:2504.20120 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Friedland, H

    A. Friedland, H. Murayama and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. D67(2003), 043519; [arXiv:astro-ph/0205520 [astro-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    Z. M. Zeng, [arXiv:2606.07296 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    R. J. Scherrer and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D58(1998), 103501; [arXiv:hep-ph/9709498 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  31. [31]

    Y. J. Li, J. Liu and Z. K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.10, 103510; [arXiv:2502.13644 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Dankovsky, S

    I. Dankovsky, S. Ramazanov, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov and A. Vikman, JCAP02 (2025), 064; [arXiv:2410.21971 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Babichev, B

    E. Babichev, B. Gafarov, S. Ramazanov and M. Valencia-Villegas, [arXiv:2604.08142 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  34. [34]

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar and O. Pujol` as, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) no.12, 123536; [arXiv:2509.19457 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D23(1981), 852-857

    1981

  36. [36]

    Ramazanov, E

    S. Ramazanov, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D105(2022) no.6, 063530; [arXiv:2104.13722 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Babichev, D

    E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov and A. Vikman, JCAP04(2022) no.04, 028; [arXiv:2112.12608 [hep-ph]]. 28

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Babichev, D

    E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, R. Samanta and A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. D 108(2023) no.12, 123529; [arXiv:2307.04582 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology,

    M. Maggiore, “Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology,” Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2018

    2018

  40. [40]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D79(2009), 083519; [arXiv:0901.1661 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    R. G. Cai, S. Pi and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) no.8, 083528; [arXiv:1909.13728 [astro-ph.CO]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    A. Hook, G. Marques-Tavares and D. Racco, JHEP02(2021), 117; [arXiv:2010.03568 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Ramazanov, JCAP02(2024), 027; [arXiv:2310.19148 [gr-qc]]

    S. Ramazanov, JCAP02(2024), 027; [arXiv:2310.19148 [gr-qc]]. [44]NANOGrav, G. Agazieet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951(2023) no.1, L8; [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]]. [45]NANOGrav, A. Afzalet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951(2023) no.1, L11 [erratum: As- trophys. J. Lett.971(2024) no.1, L27; erratum: Astrophys. J.971(2024) no.1, L27]; [arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [54]

    Datta and R

    S. Datta and R. Samanta, [arXiv:2606.09713 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [55]

    Datta and R

    S. Datta and R. Samanta, [arXiv:2606.15387 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  46. [56]

    Dankovsky and D

    I. Dankovsky and D. Gorbunov, [arXiv:2607.25073 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [57]

    S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, JCAP09(2008), 022; [arXiv:0806.1828 [hep-ph]]. 30

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008