pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.31600 · v1 · pith:2QNOKHZ7new · submitted 2026-05-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · hep-ph· hep-th

Gravitational Waves from hybrid defects as probe of Flavor symmetry breaking: Machine-Learning Approach

Anish Ghoshal , Ilia Gogoladze , Amit Tiwari This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 20:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO hep-phhep-th
keywords gravitational waveshybrid defectscosmic stringsdomain wallsflavor symmetrymachine learningstochastic background
0
0 comments X

The pith

A network of cosmic strings bounding domain walls from gauged flavor symmetry breaking produces a detectable gravitational wave background with a distinctive low-frequency slope.

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

The paper shows that successive breaking of a gauged U(1) flavor symmetry and a discrete Z2 symmetry creates a hybrid network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings. This network radiates a stochastic gravitational wave background whose spectrum future detectors can observe when the flavor scale is high. The infrared part of the spectrum has a different frequency dependence than the one produced by ordinary cosmic strings alone. The authors train a multilayer perceptron on full numerical spectra so that detector signal-to-noise ratios can be computed rapidly for many parameter choices. They also note that the same gravitational-wave data could be cross-checked against laboratory flavor measurements.

Core claim

A network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings, formed after the spontaneous breaking of a gauged U(1)_F flavor symmetry and a subsequent Z2 symmetry, generates a stochastic gravitational wave background. For sufficiently high U(1)_F breaking scales this background lies within the sensitivity reach of LISA, ET and SKA. In the microhertz-to-hertz band the spectrum exhibits a steeper infrared slope than the standard cosmic-string case. A multilayer perceptron trained on exact numerical spectra serves as a fast surrogate for computing detector signal-to-noise ratios, enabling efficient parameter scans and discrimination from pure cosmic-string signals.

What carries the argument

The string-bounded-wall network whose evolution follows standard scaling after two successive symmetry-breaking transitions, together with a multilayer perceptron surrogate that maps numerical spectra to detector signal-to-noise ratios.

If this is right

  • Detection of the predicted spectrum would directly constrain the scale of gauged flavor symmetry breaking.
  • The infrared slope difference supplies a concrete discriminant between hybrid defects and stable cosmic strings in the same detectors.
  • Rapid machine-learning evaluation of signal-to-noise ratios makes exhaustive scans over flavor-model parameters feasible.
  • Laboratory flavor observables can be combined with the gravitational-wave signal to test the same symmetry-breaking sequence.
  • Non-observation at the quoted sensitivities would exclude high-scale realizations of the U(1)_F plus Z2 scenario.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same machine-learning surrogate technique could be retrained on spectra from other hybrid defect models to accelerate their observational forecasts.
  • Absence of the signal would tighten bounds on flavor models that rely on a high-scale U(1)_F breaking to generate dark-matter candidates via the Z2.
  • Future pulsar-timing arrays or space-based interferometers could be re-optimized to exploit the distinctive infrared slope rather than assuming a pure cosmic-string template.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid defect network forms and then evolves according to the same scaling laws that are assumed for ordinary cosmic strings and domain walls.

What would settle it

A measurement of the stochastic gravitational-wave spectrum between 10^{-6} Hz and 1 Hz that either shows or fails to show an infrared slope steeper than the cosmic-string prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.31600 by Amit Tiwari, Anish Ghoshal, Ilia Gogoladze.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a novel possibility that a network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings generates a stochastic gravitational wave background (SWGB) signal originating from the spontaneous breaking of a gauged $U(1)_F$ flavor symmetry and the subsequent breaking of discrete $Z_2$ symmetry that accommodates dark matter. The gravitational wave (GW) spectrum produced by the string-bounded-wall network can be detected for high $U(1)_F$ breaking scales in forthcoming GW detectors including LISA, ET and SKA. The GW signal exhibits a distinctive frequency slope, in the infrared, compared to the standard cosmic-string case, in the frequency range between micro-hertz and hertz. We develop a possible strategy to distinguish and characterize GW spectrum of the hybrid defect from from other defects, such as stable cosmic strings, via employing the exact calculation with a machine-learning surrogate, based on a multilayer perceptron (MLP), trained on spectra obtained from the full numerical treatment. This is then used for rapid inference in the detector-specific signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) computation which also makes the process fast and efficient. We also discuss some possible complementarity between GW searches and Flavor observables in the laboratory.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a network of domain walls bounded by cosmic strings, formed after successive spontaneous breaking of a gauged U(1)_F flavor symmetry and a discrete Z_2 symmetry (accommodating dark matter), generates a stochastic gravitational wave background. This signal is asserted to be detectable in forthcoming detectors (LISA, ET, SKA) for sufficiently high U(1)_F breaking scales and to exhibit a distinctive infrared frequency slope relative to standard cosmic-string networks. Spectra are obtained via full numerical treatment of the hybrid defects and used to train a multilayer perceptron (MLP) surrogate model that enables rapid, detector-specific signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) inference; complementarity with laboratory flavor observables is also discussed.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would identify a new class of GW source tied to flavor symmetry breaking, potentially distinguishable by its infrared slope and offering a complementary probe to collider or precision flavor experiments. The MLP surrogate approach is a clear strength, providing computational efficiency for parameter scans and SNR calculations that would otherwise be prohibitive.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / network evolution description (near Eq. for GW spectrum)] The detectability and distinctive infrared slope claims rest on the assumption that the hybrid string-bounded-wall network reaches and maintains standard scaling regimes (string energy density ~1/t², wall density ~1/t) after the two successive phase transitions. No independent derivation, lattice simulation, or analytic justification specific to the gauged U(1)_F → Z_2 sequence is supplied to confirm that loop chopping, wall collapse, or friction regimes remain unaltered; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported spectra and SNR results.
  2. [§ on MLP training and SNR computation] The U(1)_F and Z_2 breaking scales are treated as free parameters chosen to place the GW spectrum inside detector bands; because the MLP is trained exclusively on spectra generated from the same parameter choices, the rapid SNR inference largely reproduces the input assumptions rather than providing an independent test of detectability.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the spectrum is detectable and has a distinctive slope yet supplies neither the explicit network evolution equations nor the numerical method used to obtain the spectra; a concise summary of the evolution equations and integration scheme should be added in the main text or an appendix.
  2. [Notation / parameter definitions] Notation for the hybrid defect parameters (tension, wall tension, correlation lengths) is introduced without a dedicated table or equation block; a compact parameter table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting these important points regarding the scaling assumptions and the role of the MLP surrogate. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / network evolution description (near Eq. for GW spectrum)] The detectability and distinctive infrared slope claims rest on the assumption that the hybrid string-bounded-wall network reaches and maintains standard scaling regimes (string energy density ~1/t², wall density ~1/t) after the two successive phase transitions. No independent derivation, lattice simulation, or analytic justification specific to the gauged U(1)_F → Z_2 sequence is supplied to confirm that loop chopping, wall collapse, or friction regimes remain unaltered; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported spectra and SNR results.

    Authors: We agree that the scaling behavior is a central assumption underlying the reported spectra. Our numerical treatment of the hybrid defects adopts the standard scaling regimes established in the cosmic-string and domain-wall literature, as the topological properties and energy-loss mechanisms (loop chopping for strings, collapse for walls) remain analogous in the gauged U(1)_F followed by Z_2 sequence. No new friction or collapse channels are introduced by the specific symmetry-breaking pattern. To strengthen the presentation we will add an explicit paragraph in the methods section, with supporting references to prior hybrid-defect studies, clarifying why the standard scaling is expected to hold. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§ on MLP training and SNR computation] The U(1)_F and Z_2 breaking scales are treated as free parameters chosen to place the GW spectrum inside detector bands; because the MLP is trained exclusively on spectra generated from the same parameter choices, the rapid SNR inference largely reproduces the input assumptions rather than providing an independent test of detectability.

    Authors: The MLP is constructed strictly as a computational surrogate to enable rapid, detector-specific SNR evaluation once the underlying spectra have already been obtained from the full numerical simulations. The parameter choices that place the signal inside detector bands are part of mapping the physically viable region; detectability itself is determined by comparing those numerically computed spectra to the detector noise curves. The MLP performs interpolation and does not generate or validate new spectra. We will revise the relevant section to make this distinction explicit and to state that the MLP serves only as an efficiency tool. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper assumes standard scaling regimes for cosmic-string and domain-wall networks after successive U(1)_F and Z_2 breakings, then generates spectra numerically and trains an MLP surrogate for rapid SNR evaluation. No quoted equation or step reduces the claimed GW spectrum, infrared slope, or detectability to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction; the scaling laws are imported as external inputs rather than defined in terms of the output. The MLP is a standard surrogate technique, not a self-referential fit. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its own results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of a gauged U(1)_F at a high scale, a subsequent Z2 breaking that produces stable domain walls bounded by strings, standard scaling evolution of the hybrid network, and the assumption that the resulting GW spectrum can be computed numerically and then emulated by an MLP without significant systematic error. No independent evidence is supplied for any of these steps.

free parameters (3)
  • U(1)_F breaking scale
    Sets the string tension and the overall amplitude and frequency location of the GW spectrum; chosen high enough for detectability.
  • Z2 breaking scale
    Determines domain-wall tension and the infrared slope modification.
  • Network scaling parameters
    Assumed values for string and wall densities that enter the GW power calculation.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Hybrid string-wall networks obey the same scaling laws derived for ordinary cosmic strings and domain walls.
    Invoked to translate symmetry-breaking scales into a GW spectrum without additional simulation of the specific flavor model.
  • domain assumption The infrared slope difference is a robust, model-independent signature of the hybrid topology.
    Used to claim distinguishability from stable strings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5749 in / 1730 out tokens · 21917 ms · 2026-06-28T20:53:40.644042+00:00 · methodology

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

144 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    and atmospheric (∆m2

  2. [2]

    This allows us to determine the coefficients in front of theϵparameter in the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices presented in Eq

    mass splittings at 1012 GeV, which were generated via two-loop RGE running using PDG data ye = 2.80×10 −6, y µ = 5.89×10 −4, y τ = 1.00×10 −2, θ21 = 33.4o,∆m 2 21 = 7.48×10 −5eV 2, θ23 = 49.1o,∆m 2 31 = 2.53×10 −3eV 2 (12) θ13 ≈8.6 o. This allows us to determine the coefficients in front of theϵparameter in the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices pr...

  3. [3]

    sufficiently high

    and integrating out the heavy Φ at an energy scale below vF we obtain: V(H, S) =−µ 2H †H+λ(H †H)2 −m 2S∗S+ +λ 2(S∗S)2 +λ 3(H †H)(S ∗S) + m12vF 2 (S2 + (S∗)2) (15) We assume that all dimensionless quartic couplingsλ,λ 2 andλ 3 are real.m 12 denotes a complex mass parameter. We adopt the following notation: µ2 =M 2 1 − 1 2 λ3v2 F m2 =M 2 3 − 1 2 λ5v2 F (16)...

    2048

  4. [4]

    domain walls bounded by cosmic strings

    SNR≥10 computed over the full detector band, and 2.f turn ∈[f min, fmax] (i.e. the deviation occurs within the detector band). In Figs. 8 and 9, the white dashed curve denotes SNR = 10. The green contours show the subset of points where the turning-point criterion is satisfied in the same detector band, for 32 δth = 20% (solid) andδ th = 40% (dashed). The...

  5. [5]

    C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B147, 277 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    Z. G. Berezhiani, Phys. Lett. B129, 99 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    Dimopoulos, Phys

    S. Dimopoulos, Phys. Lett. B129, 417 (1983). 39

    1983

  8. [8]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D79, 015018 (2009), arXiv:0811.0393 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  9. [9]

    Gonderinger, H

    M. Gonderinger, H. Lim, and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. D86, 043511 (2012), arXiv:1202.1316 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Gross, O

    C. Gross, O. Lebedev, and T. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 191801 (2017), arXiv:1708.02253 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

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

    1976

  12. [12]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rept.67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  13. [13]

    T. W. B. Kibble, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D26, 435 (1982)

    1982

  14. [14]

    A. E. Everett and A. Vilenkin, Nucl. Phys. B207, 43 (1982)

    1982

  15. [15]

    Lazarides, Q

    G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and A. Tiwari, JHEP05, 119 (2023), arXiv:2303.15159 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    D. I. Dunsky, A. Ghoshal, H. Murayama, Y. Sakakihara, and G. White, Phys. Rev. D106, 075030 (2022), arXiv:2111.08750 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Maji, W.-I

    R. Maji, W.-I. Park, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B845, 138127 (2023), arXiv:2305.11775 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Lazarides, R

    G. Lazarides, R. Maji, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D108, 095041 (2023), arXiv:2306.17788 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    B. Fu, A. Ghoshal, S. F. King, and M. H. Rahat, JHEP08, 237 (2024), arXiv:2404.16931 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Janssen et al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    G. Janssen et al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Sesana et al., Exper

    A. Sesana et al., Exper. Astron.51, 1333 (2021), arXiv:1908.11391 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Kudoh, A

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu, and Y. Himemoto, Phys. Rev. D73, 064006 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511145

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    Kawamura et al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    S. Kawamura et al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 4887 (2006), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 23, 7361 (2006)]

    2006

  26. [26]

    Y. A. El-Neaj et al. (AEDGE), EPJ Quant. Technol.7, 6 (2020), arXiv:1908.00802 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Badurina et al., JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    L. Badurina et al., JCAP05, 011 (2020), arXiv:1911.11755 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]. 40

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  29. [29]

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise, (2008), arXiv:0810.0604 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  30. [30]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.966, 137 (2024), arXiv:2210.10931 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), arXiv:2101.12130 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Jiang and Q.-G

    Y. Jiang and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP02, 026 (2023), arXiv:2210.09952 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Agazie et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Afzal et al

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA), Astron. Astrophys.678, A48 (2023), arXiv:2306.16224 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Blasi, L

    S. Blasi, L. Calibbi, A. Mariotti, and K. Turbang, JHEP05, 019 (2025), arXiv:2410.08668 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Antusch, K

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, and S. Saad, Phys. Rev. D112, 035043 (2025), arXiv:2503.05868 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Baldes, T

    I. Baldes, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, JHEP12, 073 (2016), arXiv:1608.03254 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Greljo, T

    A. Greljo, T. Opferkuch, and B. A. Stefanek, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171802 (2020), arXiv:1910.02014 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Ringe, Phys

    D. Ringe, Phys. Rev. D107, 015030 (2023), arXiv:2208.07778 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Binetruy and P

    P. Binetruy and P. Ramond, Phys. Lett. B350, 49 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9412385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  44. [44]

    Binetruy, S

    P. Binetruy, S. Lavignac, and P. Ramond, Nucl. Phys. B477, 353 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9601243

    arXiv 1996

  45. [45]

    K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze, and K. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B660, 322 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0212245

    arXiv 2003

  46. [46]

    K. S. Babu, T. Enkhbat, and I. Gogoladze, Nucl. Phys. B678, 233 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0308093. 41

    arXiv 2004

  47. [47]

    Minkowski, Phys

    P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  48. [48]

    Yanagida, Conf

    T. Yanagida, Conf. Proc. C7902131, 95 (1979)

    1979

  49. [49]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Conf. Proc. C790927, 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1979

  50. [50]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.44, 912 (1980)

    1980

  51. [51]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Nature Phys.18, 160 (2022), arXiv:2105.08533 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Aker et al

    M. Aker et al. (KATRIN), Science388, adq9592 (2025), arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    M. J. Dolinski, A. W. P. Poon, and W. Rodejohann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.69, 219 (2019), arXiv:1902.04097 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Antusch, K

    S. Antusch, K. Hinze, and S. Saad, (2025), arXiv:2510.01312 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Barger, P

    V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D77, 035005 (2008), arXiv:0706.4311 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, C. L. Wainwright, and P. Winslow, Phys. Rev. D91, 035018 (2015), arXiv:1407.5342 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    S. I. Godunov, A. N. Rozanov, M. I. Vysotsky, and E. V. Zhemchugov, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 1 (2016), arXiv:1503.01618 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  58. [58]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev.177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  59. [59]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  60. [60]

    Dudas, S

    E. Dudas, S. Pokorski, and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B356, 45 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9504292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  61. [61]

    M.-C. Chen, D. R. T. Jones, A. Rajaraman, and H.-B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D78, 015019 (2008), arXiv:0801.0248 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    B. C. Allanach, J. Davighi, and S. Melville, JHEP02, 082 (2019), [Erratum: JHEP 08, 064 (2019)], arXiv:1812.04602 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  63. [63]

    Bonnefoy, E

    Q. Bonnefoy, E. Dudas, and S. Pokorski, JHEP01, 191 (2020), arXiv:1909.05336 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    Tavartkiladze, (2025), arXiv:2512.24804 [hep-ph]

    Z. Tavartkiladze, (2025), arXiv:2512.24804 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Tavartkiladze, Phys

    Z. Tavartkiladze, Phys. Rev. D106, 115002 (2022), arXiv:2209.14404 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  66. [66]

    K. S. Babu, S. C. Chandrasekar, and Z. Tavartkiladze, (2026), arXiv:2602.24253 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 615 (1990)

    1990

  68. [68]

    Meng et al

    Y. Meng et al. (PandaX-4T), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 261802 (2021), arXiv:2107.13438 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  70. [70]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]. 42

    arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Y. Abe, T. Toma, and K. Tsumura, JHEP05, 057 (2020), arXiv:2001.03954 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    Okada, D

    N. Okada, D. Raut, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. D103, 055024 (2021), arXiv:2001.05910 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Okada, D

    N. Okada, D. Raut, Q. Shafi, and A. Thapa, Phys. Rev. D104, 095002 (2021), arXiv:2105.03419 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Arcadi, C

    G. Arcadi, C. Gross, O. Lebedev, S. Pokorski, and T. Toma, Phys. Lett. B769, 129 (2017), arXiv:1611.09675 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    J. L. Feng, I. Galon, F. Kling, and S. Trojanowski, Phys. Rev. D97, 055034 (2018), arXiv:1710.09387 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Ariga et al

    A. Ariga et al. (FASER), Phys. Rev. D99, 095011 (2019), arXiv:1811.12522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  77. [77]

    Ariga et al

    A. Ariga et al. (FASER), (2018), arXiv:1812.09139 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    Ariga et al

    A. Ariga et al. (FASER), (2019), arXiv:1901.04468 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Acciarri et al

    R. Acciarri et al. (DUNE), (2015), arXiv:1512.06148 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2015

  80. [80]

    J. M. Berryman, A. de Gouvea, P. J. Fox, B. J. Kayser, K. J. Kelly, and J. L. Raaf, JHEP 02, 174 (2020), arXiv:1912.07622 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.