Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Defect-Mediated Conversion: Dark Matter from Cosmological Domain-Wall Scattering

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmological domain walls can convert thermal-bath fermions into dark matter, and the relic abundance collapses onto a single mass–coupling band.

desk verdict Genuinely new mechanism and mostly careful physics, but the headline 30–100× freeze-in dominance is conditional on un-simulated network parameters (γ_w, v_lep) that could easily erase it; deserves a serious referee, with a demand for a real network treatment. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12468 v1 pith:VBSV37OW submitted 2026-08-12 hep-ph

João Paulo Pinheiro , Mohamed Younes Sassi This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords defect-mediatedconversiondomainwallsdarkmattergenesisscalarcondensatefreeze-inwarmLyman-alphaboundlong-livedcharged
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

This paper proposes a new way to produce dark matter in the early universe: instead of freeze-out or freeze-in operating uniformly in the plasma, a network of cosmological domain walls sweeps through the thermal bath and converts ordinary fermions into a stable dark fermion $S$ as they cross the walls. The conversion probability is governed by one dimensionless mixing area $k = y_\alpha S(T)$, where $S(T)$ is the integral of a scalar condensate trapped in the wall core, and in the relativistic limit it reduces to $\tanh^2(k)$, independent of both incident energy and dark mass. Requiring the observed relic density $\Omega_S h^2 = 0.12$ collapses the parameter space to a single mass–coupling band from the keV Lyman-$\alpha$ floor up to the wall-formation scale, with the dark mass no longer bounded by the mediator mass. The same portal also sources ordinary freeze-in, but the paper shows that DMC dominates it by a factor of 30–100 at fixed couplings and remains operative for dark sectors heavier than the mediator, where freeze-in shuts off. If correct, the mechanism gives a direct, parameter-free link between a topological-defect network and the dark-matter abundance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the wall-localized scalar condensate: in the domain-wall background, $h^+$ has a negative effective mass $M_+^2(0) = \tfrac{1}{2}\mu_+^2 < 0$ inside the core when $\mu_+^2 < -\tfrac{2}{3}\lambda_{\sigma+}v_\sigma^2$, so it acquires a space-dependent expectation value $v_+(x)$ that vanishes in the bulk. This turns the Yukawa $y_\alpha h^+ \bar{\ell}_{R\alpha} S$ into a position-dependent Dirac mass, and the only quantity surviving in the scattering problem is the mixing area $S(T) = \int dx\, v_+(x,T) \simeq 2v_+(0,T)/m_\sigma(T)$. In the relativistic limit the crossing probability is exactly $\tanh^2(k)$ with $k = y_\alpha S(T)$: the wall acts as a coherent mixer rotating $(\ell, S)$ by the total mixing $\int dx\, M(x)$. The yield then factorizes into the network area density $A(T) = A_0 (T/T_c)^2$ with $A_0 = \gamma_w m_\sigma^0$ and the lepton flux $n_\ell(T) E(M_S/T)$, integrated from the condensate onset temperature $T_{\rm onset}$ to the network annihilation temperature $T_{\rm ann}$. Because $S$ is a ratio of $v_+(0)$ to the wall width, $v_\sigma$ cancels for thin walls and the portal is bounded only by perturbativity, which is what allows the mechanism to be moved across mass scales without retuning.

What would settle it

Run a dedicated lattice or analytic simulation of the $\sigma$ domain-wall network from formation to annihilation, including friction from $h^\pm$ reflection off the wall, and measure the area density $A(T)$: if $\gamma_w = A_0/m_\sigma^0$ comes out substantially below 1, the DMC yield in Eq. (13) drops by the same factor while the freeze-in curves are unchanged, eroding both the mass–coupling band normalization and the 30–100 dominance ratio. Separately, a numerical search for the $h^+$ bound state in the wall profile that finds no tachyonic mode for parameters satisfying the window of Eq. (S12) would close the portal entirely.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Defect-Mediated Conversion: a $Z_2$-symmetric scalar $\sigma$ whose spontaneous breaking creates domain walls, together with a charged scalar $h^+$ that develops a localized condensate $v_+(x)$ in the wall core, realizes a space-dependent Yukawa portal $y_\alpha v_+(x)\,\bar{\ell}_{R\alpha} S$. Solving the one-dimensional Dirac equation for a lepton crossing the wall gives the conversion probability $P = 8g_d(g_d^2+1)\sinh^2 k / [(g_d-1)^2 - (g_d+1)^2\cosh k]^2$, with $g_d = \sqrt{E_\ell^2 - M_S^2}/(E_\ell + M_S)$; for $M_S \ll E_\ell$ this collapses to $\tanh^2(k)$ with $k = y_\alpha S(T)$, where $S(T) = \int dx\, v_+(x,T) \simeq 2v_+(0,T)/m_\sigma(T)$ is the dimensionless mixing area accumulated across the wall. The relic yield is $Y_S = \gamma_w \hat{C}\,(m_\sigma^0/T_c^2)\, J \sum_\alpha |y_\alpha|^2$, with $J$ integrating $S^2 E(M_S/T)$ over the conversion window and $\gamma_w$ parameterizing the wall area density relative to the causality bound; imposing $\Omega_S h^2 = 0.12$ fixes $M_S \propto (\gamma_w S^2 \sum_\alpha |y_\alpha|^2)^{-1}$. The same Yukawa portal sources ordinary freeze-in through $h^+$ decay and $2\to 2$ scattering, but DMC outproduces freeze-in by one to two orders of magnitude while the decay channel is open and keeps working above $m_{h^+}$, where freeze-in is exponentially and Yukawa suppressed.

Load-bearing premise

The yield is directly proportional to un-simulated network properties—the initial wall area density $A_0 = \gamma_w m_\sigma^0$, taken maximal with $\gamma_w = 1$, and the wall sweeping velocity $v_{\rm lep} \approx 1$—so if a realistic network packs less densely or sweeps more slowly, the quoted DMC abundance and its 30–100 dominance over freeze-in drop proportionally.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $M_S \lesssim T_{\rm ann}$ the conversion probability is independent of incident energy and dark mass, so the dark mass is an output of the relic-density condition rather than a free input, and the viable region is a single line $M_S \propto (\gamma_w S^2 \sum_\alpha |y_\alpha|^2)^{-1}$ running from the keV Lyman-$\alpha$ floor upward.
  • For $M_S \gtrsim T_{\rm onset}$, production remains open because one lepton with $E > M_S$ is enough for conversion; the required coupling grows as $e^{M_S/T_{\rm onset}}$, softened by a threshold factor, so dark sectors heavier than both the bath temperature and the mediator mass are reachable at perturbative couplings.
  • At fixed couplings and while the decay $h^+ \to \ell^+ S$ is open, DMC outproduces freeze-in through the same portal by a factor 30–100 at the benchmarks, making freeze-in at most a few-percent correction; the two channels populate different epochs and are additive.
  • In the light regime $S$ inherits an exact Fermi–Dirac spectrum and never thermalizes, so the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest excludes $M_S < 11.0$ keV (conservative) or $19.2$ keV (stringent), and the dark particle itself produces no X-ray line and no indirect signal at any mass.
  • Observable tests come from the network and the mediator rather than from $S$: the annihilating walls generate a gravitational-wave background with peak frequency controlled by $T_{\rm ann}$, and the long-lived $h^+$ gives displaced-lepton or heavy-stable-charged-particle signatures at the LHC.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the crossing probability is a two-state mixing result controlled only by the mixing area $k = y_\alpha S(T)$, the same construction should work with a neutral scalar condensate on the wall; replacing the charged $h^+$ would remove the electromagnetic-core and collider complications while preserving the yield formula, a variant this paper does not develop.
  • Beyond the paper: the near-threshold formula has a resonance where the conversion probability approaches unity at $E_\ell \approx M_S$ when $k^2 \simeq 8g_d$; tuning a benchmark so most conversions happen just above threshold during the early part of the window would soften the exponential suppression in the heavy regime and could lower the required Yukawa below the paper's high-mass tail.
  • Beyond the paper: the quoted 30–100 dominance over freeze-in assumes maximal network packing ($\gamma_w = 1$) and near-light-speed sweeping; a dedicated network simulation that measures $\gamma_w$ below 1 would lower the DMC yield and the dominance ratio proportionally, making the network density itself the most decisive number to check numerically.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Defect-Mediated Conversion (DMC), a new dark-matter production mechanism in which a Z2-odd scalar sigma forms a cosmological domain-wall network and a charged scalar h+ condenses in the wall core. The Yukawa coupling y_alpha h+ l_R^c S then acts as a localized mixing portal between thermal bath leptons and a stable dark fermion S. The conversion probability for relativistic final states is derived from the one-dimensional Dirac equation in the thin-wall limit, giving P = tanh^2(k) with k = y_alpha S(T), independent of incident energy and dark mass. The relic abundance is computed from the wall area density A(T) = gamma_w m_sigma^0 (T/Tc)^2, the thermal lepton flux, and the assumption v_lep ~ 1, yielding a mass-coupling band for Omega_S h^2 = 0.12. The paper claims that DMC dominates ordinary freeze-in through the same portal by a factor 30-100 at fixed couplings, and that it remains operative for dark sectors heavier than the mediator, where freeze-in shuts off. Constraints from Lyman-alpha, gravitational waves, BBN, and collider searches are also discussed.

Significance. If the network assumptions hold, DMC is a genuinely new dark-matter production channel: it uses persistent topological defects rather than a transient first-order transition, produces non-thermal DM with a universal conversion probability, and extends to heavy dark sectors beyond the reach of freeze-in. The paper has notable strengths: the Dirac-equation derivation is internally consistent and cross-checked against an exact numerical solution reproducing tanh^2(k); the constant-portal analytic estimate is used conservatively; and the dependence of the final abundance on the adopted network parameters is stated transparently. The main significance is conditional, however: the quantitative predictions, including the 30-100 dominance over freeze-in and the normalization of the Omega_S h^2 = 0.12 band, are proportional to the unsimulated area-density parameter gamma_w and to the assumed flux prescription. The mechanism is interesting and should be published if these inputs are quantified or the claims are reframed as conditional on gamma_w.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (8)-(9), (13), Table III, Fig. 3] The central quantitative results, namely the 30-100 dominance over freeze-in in Table III and the normalization of the Omega_S h^2 = 0.12 band in Fig. 3, are proportional to gamma_w, and the manuscript takes gamma_w = 1. Causality bounds gamma_w from above, not from below. For a second-order transition, Kibble-Zurek estimates for the initial correlation length typically give xi_0 >> 1/m_sigma^0; with mean-field exponents one finds xi_0 ~ (M_pl/Tc^3)^{1/2}, which for BP1 corresponds to gamma_w ~ 10^{-8}. Moreover, once the network coarsens toward the standard scaling attractor A ~ 1/t ~ T^2/M_pl, the area density at temperatures below Tc is many orders of magnitude below gamma_w m_sigma^0 (T/Tc)^2. The statement that 'causality alone gives gamma_w <= 1' provides no lower bound. Since Eq. (S48) and Fig. 3 scale linearly with gamma_w, a reduction of even two orders of magnitude would erase the claimed freeze-in dominance, and a much larger reduction is not excluded by the text. The paper should provide a dedicated network simulation including friction, or at minimum a justified conservative range for gamma_w, and should state the headline claims as conditional on that range.
  2. [Eqs. (10)-(13) and v_lep ≈ 1] The source term in Eq. (10) is written as A(T) v_lep times a momentum-space number-density integral, so it vanishes in the limit v_lep -> 0. A wall at rest in a thermal bath, however, is still crossed by leptons with a one-sided flux approximately n_l/4, giving a total flux of order n_l/2, so conversion does not shut off for slowly moving or static walls. The Boltzmann source should be a proper flux integral over the relative lepton-wall velocity, or equivalently a boosted distribution in the wall frame; the simple v_lep n_l replacement is not the correct non-relativistic limit. This matters because the acknowledged friction from h± and B/gamma reflection may slow the walls. The actual yield is then not proportional to v_lep in the slow-wall regime, and Eq. (13) and Eq. (S48) should carry the correct O(1) flux factor rather than an assumed v_lep = 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM Sec. VII E] The statement that freeze-in and DMC 'populate different epochs' is inaccurate: for BP1 the freeze-in peak from h+ decay, T ~ m_h+/2.4 ~ 218 GeV, lies inside the conversion window T_ann = 2 GeV < T < T_onset = 263 GeV. The yields are still additive because the processes are independent, but the text should not justify additivity by epoch separation.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion report the 30-100 dominance over freeze-in and the mass-coupling band as unconditional results. Since these depend on gamma_w = 1, the abstract should state this condition explicitly, as the conclusion already does.
  3. [Eq. (14)] The factor 'ln 172 / ln(Tonset/Tann)' in Eq. (14) is not explained and is difficult to parse; the paper should clarify that this is the logarithmic ratio in the constant-portal estimate and define all symbols at first use.
  4. [SM Fig. 6] The numerical cross-check of the conversion probability is shown only for M_S << E_l; a check of Eq. (5) in the threshold regime, where g_d -> 0, would strengthen the heavy-mass results that are central to the paper's high-mass claims.
  5. [Fig. 3] The six dotted freeze-in curves are difficult to distinguish in the plane of Fig. 3; direct labels or distinct line styles would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

The derivation is self-contained: the conversion probability, yield, and freeze-in comparison are computed from stated microphysical inputs, and the Ω_S h² = 0.12 normalization is used as a constraint, not as a hidden input.

full rationale

No circular step was identified. The central chain is: the scalar equations of motion determine the condensate profile and hence the mixing area S(T); the one-dimensional Dirac matching problem yields the conversion probability, which reduces to tanh²(k) in the light limit and is cross-checked numerically in SM Fig. 6; and the Boltzmann source term integrates the wall area density and lepton flux. None of these stages defines its output in terms of the eventual relic abundance. The Yukawa couplings are then chosen so that Ω_S h² = 0.12, which is a standard observational constraint rather than a fitted input disguised as a prediction. The freeze-in comparison uses the same portal and the same couplings; the ratio Y_S/Y_FI is independent of the coupling by Eq. (S48) and is computed from the benchmark parameters, not tuned. The area-density parameter γ_w is an explicit, bounded parameter in Eq. (9), and the paper states that the quoted results use the maximal value γ_w = 1 and v_lep ≈ 1; it also explicitly notes in SM Sec. VII E that the ratio scales linearly with γ_w, so a smaller value would reduce Table III proportionally. This is a transparent caveat about an unsimulated network property, not a circular reduction. The self-citations [18, 34, 38] supply transfer-matrix and vacuum-stability calculations whose assumptions do not include the relic density or the DM yield, so they are independent supporting results rather than self-referential inputs. The deferred network simulation is a robustness limitation for the numerical normalization of the band and the 30–100 dominance factor, but it does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard cosmological and field-theoretic framework plus a specific BSM scalar sector. The main inputs are the benchmark scalar parameters, the area efficiency gamma_w and collision velocity v_lep (both un-simulated), and the Yukawa coupling fitted to the observed DM abundance. No entity is invented solely to absorb an unexplained discrepancy; the model is a parameterized extension whose free parameters are scanned.

free parameters (5)
  • gamma_w = 1 (causality upper bound)
    Area-efficiency factor for the initial wall network; appears linearly in Y_S (Eq. 13). No network simulation is provided, so the paper quotes results at the maximal value gamma_w=1.
  • T_ann = 2 GeV (benchmarks)
    Annihilation temperature of the wall network, set by the Z2-breaking epsilon. Chosen so annihilation precedes BBN and all charged leptons remain thermal; the relic abundance depends on it only logarithmically (Eq. 14).
  • y_alpha = 10^-9 to 10^-12 across the viable band
    Yukawa couplings fitted to Omega_S h^2=0.12; Fig. 3 charts the required coupling as a function of M_S. This is a constraint, not a derived constant.
  • benchmark scalar parameters (v_sigma, m_h+, lambda_sigma, lambda_sigma+, lambda_+) = BP-dependent; e.g., BP1 uses v_sigma=300 GeV, m_h+=523 GeV, (lambda_sigma, lambda_sigma+, lambda_+)=(1.82, 5.31, 12.0)
    Chosen by hand to satisfy the condensate window (Eq. S12), thin-wall condition, and perturbativity; they determine S(T), which enters the yield.
  • M_S (dark fermion mass) = scanned from keV to TeV
    The dark matter mass is a model input; the paper solves for the required coupling as a function of M_S rather than predicting a single mass. In the light regime Eq. (14) expresses the resulting M_S at fixed coupling.
assumptions (9)
  • standard math Dirac equation scattering theory and the transfer-matrix solution for the two-species system (SM Sec. V).
    The conversion probability Eq. (5) is obtained by solving the one-dimensional Dirac equations with a delta-function condensate and matching at x=0.
  • standard math Standard radiation-dominated FRW cosmology, entropy conservation, and running g*(T) (Eq. 13 and SM Sec. VII).
    Used to convert the Boltzmann equation into the yield integral and to redshift the wall network.
  • domain assumption A Z2-breaking phase transition produces a scaling domain-wall network with area density A(T)=A_0(T/T_c)^2 (Eq. 8).
    The network is assumed to follow the scaling solution from formation to annihilation; friction and small-domain flipping are mentioned but not modeled.
  • domain assumption Walls sweep the plasma with v_lep ≈ 1 (Eq. 13).
    The yield is proportional to v_lep, but no velocity calculation or friction slowdown is included.
  • domain assumption The dark fermion S never thermalizes because its only coupling is the tiny portal Yukawa.
    Used to set f_S≈0 in the Boltzmann equation and to justify the Fermi-Dirac inherited spectrum in SM Sec. VI.
  • domain assumption The condensate portal is active only between T_onset and T_ann, with S(T) computed by solving the coupled scalar equations of motion at each temperature (SM Sec. III).
    The thermal history of the portal controls the J integral in Eq. (13).
  • ad hoc to paper The specific BSM field content and charge assignments (sigma under Z2, h+ under U(1)_D, S with lepton number) realize the portal only inside the wall (Eq. 1).
    The mechanism is defined by this sector; it is a model-building choice, not a consequence of SM physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of SM Higgs couplings to the new scalars (lambda_Phi_sigma, lambda_Phi_+ ≈ 0) and neglect of epsilon sigma^3 in the wall profiles.
    These simplify the scalar equations of motion; the paper states this and keeps epsilon only to set T_ann.
  • ad hoc to paper The phase transition is second order, so T_form = T_c and there is no supercooled formation temperature.
    The area density at formation is set at T_c; a strongly first-order transition would change the network properties.
invented entities (4)
  • Dark fermion S
    purpose: Stable dark matter candidate produced by wall conversion; carries U(1)_D charge and lepton number +1.
    No direct, indirect, or X-ray signal; its only coupling is the tiny portal Yukawa, so it is observable only through the production mechanism.
  • Charged scalar h+ independent evidence
    purpose: Mediator that condenses in the wall core, generating the space-dependent mass M(x)=y v_+(x) that mixes leptons with S; also controls freeze-in and collider signatures.
    Predicts long-lived or stable charged scalar signatures at the LHC (displaced leptons, heavy stable charged particles); BP1-BP3 sit at or below the CMS HSCP bound, so the benchmark region is directly testable.
  • Z2-odd scalar sigma independent evidence
    purpose: Forms the domain-wall network; its zero crossing hosts the h+ condensate, and its tension and bias set T_ann.
    The annihilating network predicts a stochastic gravitational-wave background, with f_peak in the nano-Hz band for small epsilon, testable by pulsar timing arrays and SKA, though below current sensitivity for T_ann=2 GeV.
  • Exact U(1)_D symmetry
    purpose: Keeps S stable and forbids neutrino mass and 0nu beta beta.
    No gauge boson or SM coupling; the only consequence is stability of S.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Defect-Mediated Conversion: Dark Matter from Cosmological Domain-Wall Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VBSV37OW

@misc{pith2026260812468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Defect-Mediated Conversion: Dark Matter from Cosmological Domain-Wall Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VBSV37OW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12468}
}
abstract

We propose a new mechanism for dark matter genesis, \emph{Defect-Mediated Conversion} (DMC). Cosmological domain walls can host a scalar condensate in their core acting as a mixing portal between the Standard Model and a dark sector: thermal-bath fermions crossing the wall are partially and non-thermally converted into dark particles. The conversion probability is governed by a single dimensionless mixing area built from the wall profile, and the yield by the area density of the network. For a light dark particle the probability is independent of both the incident energy and the dark mass, and the relic abundance collapses onto a single mass--coupling relation running from the keV Lyman-$\alpha$ floor to the wall-formation scale. For a heavy one, conversion turns the energy of a single incident fermion into the dark mass, populating dark sectors with masses exceeding both the bath temperature and the mediator mass. The same portal also sources ordinary freeze-in, but DMC, boosted by the coherent wall-area enhancement, dominates it by one to two orders of magnitude at fixed couplings and remains operative in the heavy regime, where freeze-in shuts off.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The Defect-Mediated Conversion mechanism. Blue: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mixing area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the resulting band across both regimes, together with the coupling required by ordinary freeze￾in through the same portal. Freeze-in demands a larger Yukawa than DMC everywhere. Below MS = mh+ the decay h + → ℓ + α S is open and both yields are linear in P α |yα| 2 , so the vertical separation between the two sets of curves is the yield ratio YS/Y FI S of Table III. At MS = mh+ that channel closes kinematicall… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Thermal evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Field profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Conversion probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Half-mode criterion test [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Freeze-in production of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IV) [14, 17]

    The smallZ 2-breaking termϵσ 3 lifts the degener- acy between±v σ and drives the network to annihilate at Tann, well before it could come to dominate the energy density of the universe (SM Sec. IV) [14, 17]. Requiring the network to form bounds the induced vacuum energy bias to [14]V bias <0.795V 0, which translates into un up- per boundϵ < 0.795/(2−0.795...

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

    arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Arcadi, M

    G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mam- brini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 203 (2018), arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.39, 165 (1977)

    1977

  5. [5]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D33, 1585 (1986), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 34, 3263 (1986)]

    1986

  6. [6]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP03, 080, arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Bernal, M

    N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuomi- nen, and V. Vaskonen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32, 1730023 (2017), arXiv:1706.07442 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  2. [10]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  3. [11]

    M. J. Baker, J. Kopp, and A. J. Long, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 151102 (2020), arXiv:1912.02830 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chway, T

    D. Chway, T. H. Jung, and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. D101, 095019 (2020), arXiv:1912.04238 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. Yin, JHEP03, 288, arXiv:2101.05721 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67, 3 (1974)

    1974

  7. [15]

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

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

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zee, Phys

    A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B93, 389 (1980), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 95, 461 (1980)]

    1980

  10. [18]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1156 (1982)

    1982

  11. [19]

    M. Y. Sassi and G. Moortgat-Pick, JHEP04, 101, arXiv:2309.12398 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

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

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

    2007

  14. [22]

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

    1976

  15. [23]

    Vilenkin, Phys

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

    1981

  16. [24]

    R. A. Battye and D. G. Viatic, Phys. Lett. B823, 136730 (2021), arXiv:2110.13668 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, A. Sevrin, and K. Turbang, JCAP04, 008, arXiv:2210.14246 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Irˇ siˇ cet al., Phys

    V. Irˇ siˇ cet al., Phys. Rev. D96, 023522 (2017), arXiv:1702.01764 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP05, 032, arXiv:1002.1555 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Saikawa, JCAP09, 008, arXiv:1102.5628 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hiramatsu, M

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

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, JCAP02, 001, arXiv:2204.04228 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

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

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Afzalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    A. Afzalet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. A. Battye, S. J. Cotterill, and A. K. Thomasson, Phys. Rev. D112, 115015 (2025), arXiv:2509.23332 [hep-ph]

    2025

  26. [34]

    K. H. Law and A. Pilaftsis, Phys. Rev. D105, 056007 (2022), arXiv:2110.12550 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    M. Y. Sassi and G. Moortgat-Pick, JHEP06, 072, arXiv:2407.14468 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    R. A. Battye, A. Pilaftsis, and D. G. Viatic, JHEP01, 105, arXiv:2006.13273 [hep-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B249, 557 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    R. A. Battye, G. D. Brawn, and A. Pilaftsis, JHEP08, 020, arXiv:1106.3482 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    M. Y. Sassi and G. Moortgat-Pick, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1230 (2025), arXiv:2506.14880 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320 (1974)

    1974

  33. [41]

    Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp

    M. Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp. 187–259, arXiv:hep- ph/9901312

    1999

  34. [42]

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

    1989

  35. [43]

    Vilenkin and E

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

    2000

  36. [44]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D13, 3398 (1976)

    1976

  37. [45]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.43, 27 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9302210

    1993 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Joyce, T

    M. Joyce, T. Prokopec, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D53, 2930 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9410281

    1996 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Joyce, T

    M. Joyce, T. Prokopec, and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D53, 2958 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9410282

    1996 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P. Bode, J. P. Ostriker, and N. Turok, Astrophys. J.556, 93 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0010389

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Matar- rese, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D71, 063534 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501562

    2005 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP05, 003, arXiv:2401.16333 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP05, 003, arXiv:2401.16333 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fairbairn, A

    M. Fairbairn, A. C. Kraan, D. A. Milstead, T. Sjostrand, P. Z. Skands, and T. Sloan, Phys. Rept.438, 1 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611040

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP04, 109, arXiv:2410.09164 [hep-ex]

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.(CMS), JHEP04, 109, arXiv:2410.09164 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP2306, 158, arXiv:2205.06013 [hep-ex]

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), JHEP2306, 158, arXiv:2205.06013 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Pospelov, Phys

    M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 231301 (2007), 7 arXiv:hep-ph/0605215

    2007 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, and T.-H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016), arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]. 8 Supplemental Material Defect-Mediated Conversion: Dark Matter from Cosmological Domain-Wall Scattering I. SCALAR FIELD CONDENSA TE INSIDE THE W ALL That ...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.