Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Supercooled phase transitions in conformal dark sectors explain NANOGrav data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A supercooled first-order phase transition in a conformal dark sector with a gauged U(1)' symmetry can explain the nanohertz gravitational-wave background observed by pulsar timing arrays.

desk verdict A concrete and likely-correct counterexample to the 'supercooled FOPTs can't explain NANOGrav' lore, with a fixable gap in the sigma-direction potential. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11619 v3 pith:64OLQ4OV submitted 2025-01-20 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

João Gonçalves , Danny Marfatia , António P. Morais , Roman Pasechnik This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords supercooledfirst-orderphasetransitionsconformaldarksectorgravitationalwavebackgroundNANOGravpulsartimingarraysU(1)'gaugesymmetryColeman-WeinbergmechanismMeV-scale
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 demonstrates that a strongly supercooled first-order phase transition in a conformal dark sector with a gauged U(1)' symmetry can produce the nanohertz gravitational-wave background seen by pulsar timing arrays. The demonstration matters because a previous no-go argument suggested such transitions either fail to complete or reheat the Universe too hot to leave a signal at those frequencies. In the model presented here, the transition completes, the reheating temperature stays below the dark-sector mass scale, and the predicted spectrum matches the NANOGrav 15-year data. If the claim holds, supercooled phase transitions remain viable explanations for pulsar timing array signals and come with a concrete, narrow dark-sector parameter region to target.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the RG-improved thermal effective potential along the dark scalar direction, $V_{\rm eff}(\phi_\sigma, T)$, assembled from the tree-level potential, the one-loop radiative correction, thermal integrals, and Daisy resummation, with couplings and field renormalized at $\mu=\max[M_{Z'}(\phi_\sigma), \pi T]$. The load-bearing object is the normalized Euclidean action $S_3/T$: in a conformal model it decreases monotonically toward zero as $T\to 0$, allowing percolation to complete even for extreme supercooling, whereas in the nonconformal models behind the no-go argument the action is U-shaped and bounds the percolation temperature from below. Tunneling rates from this action yield the percolation temperature, reheating temperature, strength $\alpha$, and inverse duration $\beta/H$ that feed the gravitational-wave templates. The scalon, the light scalar that emerges from radiative symmetry breaking, together with the condition $T_{\rm RH}<M_{Z'}$, keeps the peak frequency in the nanohertz band.

What would settle it

Recompute the bounce action with the full two-field potential, including the Higgs direction, at the best-fit benchmark $g_L=0.59$, $M_{h_2}=12.4$ MeV, $M_{Z'}=107.3$ MeV. If including the second field changes the percolation temperature by more than an order of magnitude or prevents completion, the NANOGrav fit would not survive. Observationally, future pulsar timing data that show a pure power-law background continuing well below the predicted peak, with no turnover, would disfavor this explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dark extension of the Standard Model in which only the dark sector is classically conformal, with radiative U(1)' breaking, produces a first-order phase transition that is strongly supercooled yet completes. Because the conformal potential barrier persists to zero temperature, the normalized Euclidean action $S_3/T$ falls toward zero as $T\to 0$, so percolation can finish at very low temperature, and because the barrier is conformal the reheating temperature does not jump up to the dark-sector mass scale. The resulting gravitational-wave spectrum, built from an RG-improved thermal potential and current spectral templates, fits the NANOGrav 15-year signal with $Z'$ and scalon masses in the 10--100 MeV range, a gauge coupling $g_L\simeq 0.59$, and a negligibly small portal coupling $|\lambda_{\sigma h}|<10^{-10}$. This is offered as a concrete counterexample to the claim that supercooled first-order phase transitions cannot explain pulsar timing array data.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the phase transition runs purely along the dark scalar field, with the ordinary Higgs field completely decoupled because the Higgs is much heavier than the dark scalar and its interaction with it is extremely weak.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Supercooled first-order phase transitions are not generically ruled out as pulsar timing array explanations; the no-go argument applies to nonconformal models, not to conformal dark sectors.
  • At the best-fit point the supermassive black hole binary contribution is negligible, so the NANOGrav signal can be fully explained by the dark sector transition alone.
  • The favored parameter region---$Z'$ and scalon masses of order 10--100 MeV, $g_L$ near 0.6, $\lambda_\sigma$ of order $-0.01$, and $|\lambda_{\sigma h}|<10^{-10}$---provides concrete targets for nHz gravitational-wave experiments and dark-sector searches.
  • Making only the dark sector conformal, with $\mu_h^2\neq 0$, avoids the Higgs vacuum stability obstruction that blocks the alternative hierarchy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper computes the transition along a single field direction; if two-field effects involving the Higgs are included, the favored region could shift or shrink. A natural next step, not taken in the paper, would be a full two-dimensional bounce calculation.
  • The mechanism is not obviously specific to U(1)': any classically conformal dark sector with a radiatively broken gauge symmetry could behave similarly, though the quantitative fit would differ. The paper's conclusion therefore suggests a broader family of PTA-compatible supercooled transitions.
  • Because the fit demands $|\lambda_{\sigma h}|<10^{-10}$, the dark scalar is essentially decoupled from the Higgs, so the gravitational-wave signal may be the only observable consequence of this sector; collider signatures would be extremely weak.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that supercooled first-order phase transitions in a classically conformal dark U(1)' sector can explain the nHz stochastic gravitational wave background reported by NANOGrav, contrary to recent claims that such transitions fail to complete or reheat to too high temperatures. The authors construct a model with a dark scalar σ, a dark gauge boson Z', and a tiny Higgs-portal coupling, and compute the phase transition dynamics using a one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential, thermal corrections, Daisy resummation, and the CosmoTransitions bounce package. They then fit the resulting gravitational wave spectrum to the NANOGrav 15-year data using PTArcade, obtaining preferred values MZ' in the 10-100 MeV range, gL ~ 0.6, and |λσh| < 1e-10. The paper argues that conformal models evade the no-go concerns of Ref. [9] because percolation is always possible and the reheating temperature stays below the dark-sector mass scale.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, the paper provides a concrete counterexample to the lore that supercooled FOPTs cannot explain the NANOGrav signal, and it identifies a falsifiable parameter corner of a conformal dark sector. The analysis uses standard and largely accepted tools (one-loop CW potential, thermal integrals, Daisy resummation, CosmoTransitions, PTArcade) and explicitly checks percolation, potential boundedness, and the BBN bound on dark radiation. The paper does not ship code or scan data, which limits reproducibility; the confidence regions are therefore not independently checkable from the manuscript alone.

major comments (3)
  1. [RG-improved thermal potential, Eq. (1)] The tree-level portal coupling λσh in Eq. (1) generates a Higgs-induced mass term for the dark scalar after electroweak symmetry breaking, ΔV = λσh (v²/4) φ². This term is not included in the σ-direction effective potential used for the bounce. For the allowed range |λσh| < 1e-10, one obtains m_portal² ≈ 3 MeV², which at the best-fit point (Table I, Mh2 = 12.4 MeV) is about 2% of the scalon mass squared. Because the nucleation action at Tn is S3/T ≈ 140 (Fig. 1), a 2% change in the mass term can shift S3/T by a few units, which in turn changes the percolation temperature Tp and the derived α and β/H values. The paper's statement that the impact of λσh is 'negligible' is not supported by a quantitative estimate, so the robustness of the NANOGrav fit within the allowed parameter range is not established. Please include this term in the bounce calculation or give a bound on the resulting shift in the SGWB spectrum.
  2. [RG-improved thermal potential] The reduction to a one-field bounce along the σ direction is asserted rather than demonstrated. The sentence 'we only consider the σ direction to be relevant for the FOPT as it decouples from the Higgs direction due to the strong scale hierarchy Mh1 ≫ Mh2' does not by itself imply that the two-field action equals the single-field action to sufficient accuracy. A heavy field can still affect the bounce if the tunneling path curves in field space, and finite-temperature corrections involving the Higgs may lower the barrier. Given the exponential sensitivity of the nucleation rate to the action, a two-field correction of order unity could move the predicted spectrum outside the NANOGrav band. I request a two-field bounce calculation for at least the best-fit point and a small set of scan points, or an analytic estimate showing that the deviation is negligible.
  3. [Numerical results] The scan imposes the conditions TRH < M and α ≲ 1e8 in order to keep the signal in the nHz band. These are selection cuts rather than derived properties of the model. The claim that the model 'easily explains' NANOGrav is therefore a statement about the post-cut parameter space; the fraction of the unconstrained parameter space that satisfies these cuts is not quantified, and the priors are not physically motivated beyond the desire to match NANOGrav. Please clarify whether these conditions are generic for the model or define a fine-tuned region, since this bears directly on the 'easily' in the central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Acknowledgments] There is a duplicated word: 'supported supported by the Center...' should read 'supported by the Center...'.
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'the σ†σ term is absent' is imprecise: what is absent is the σ mass term, since the quartic λσ(σ†σ)² is present in Eq. (1). Please rephrase.
  3. [Equation (5)] The notation h²ΩGW uses h for the reduced Hubble constant, but h² is not explicitly defined before this equation; a one-line definition would help.
  4. [Numerical results] The text says 'NANOGrav data favor Z′ and h2 masses in the 10–100 MeV range at 68% CL', while the Summary says 'dark sector masses of O(1−100) MeV'; please reconcile these ranges to avoid an apparent inconsistency.
  5. [Appendix] The paper does not provide the scan data or a link to the code; given that the confidence regions are a central output, making the data available would substantially aid reproducibility and verification.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One scan prior is relabeled as a NANOGrav requirement, while the main FOPT-to-SGWB fit is otherwise self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Numerical results (scan setup) and Summary]
    "We require |λσh| < 10−10 so that vσ is small enough to yield a signal at PTAs. For these values of λσh, the impact on the FOPT is negligible. ... Interestingly, NANOGrav data require |λσh| < 10−10."

    The bound |λσh| < 10^-10 is imposed as a prior before the scan; parameter space with λσh at or above this cutoff is never explored. The Summary then presents this same imposed restriction as a data-driven requirement ('NANOGrav data require'). The conclusion is therefore equivalent to the scan input by construction, not an output of the NANOGrav likelihood. This is the pattern of a fitted input being reported as a prediction or constraint.

full rationale

The central calculation is not circular: SGWB spectra are computed from the model potential with CosmoTransitions and then compared with the NANOGrav 15-year data via PTArcade, so the peak frequency and amplitude are not constructed to equal the data; they are evaluated and fitted. The special status of |λσh| < 10^-10, however, is a genuine circular step because it is first imposed as a scan prior and later described as a constraint implied by the data. Reliance on the authors' own Ref. [10] for the model and RG-improvement machinery is ordinary self-citation rather than circularity: it supplies an externally testable framework (the companion paper predicts mHz GW signals) and no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked to force the choice. The skeptic's concern about an omitted portal-induced mass term in the σ-direction potential is a robustness and correctness issue, not an input-output equivalence, and does not count as circularity under the stated criteria. Overall, the paper's main claim retains independent content, with one minor construction-driven conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 3 invented entities

All free parameters are scanned or hand-set; the axioms are standard computational and modeling assumptions. The central fit rests on the existence of a CW minimum in the sigma direction, the single-field approximation, and the thermalization and reheating assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • Mh2 (scalon mass) = 12.4 MeV (best fit); scan [0.1, 100] MeV
    Input scalar mass; controls phase transition scale and GW peak frequency.
  • gL (U(1)' gauge coupling) = 0.59 (best fit); scan [0.25, 1.5]
    Gauge coupling controlling Z' mass, CW potential shape, and GW amplitude.
  • lambda_sigma h (Higgs-portal coupling) = |lambda_sigma h| < 1e-10 (imposed)
    Set tiny so the Higgs and sigma sectors decouple and v_sigma is low enough for PTA frequencies.
  • g12 (kinetic mixing) = 2e-10 at EW scale
    Fixed by hand for Z'-visible thermalization; not scanned.
  • SMBHB amplitude and spectral index (ABHB, gamma_BHB) = ABHB = 10^-15.4, gamma_BHB = 4.50 (best fit)
    Nuisance parameters in the joint PTArcade fit; not part of the dark sector model.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential plus thermal integrals and Daisy resummation accurately describe the phase transition thermodynamics.
    Used to compute Veff and the mass spectrum; higher-loop and gauge-dependence effects are not evaluated. See model and RG-improved potential sections.
  • domain assumption The RG beta functions in the Appendix, which omit W/Z contributions, are the correct running between the EW scale and the MeV scale.
    The justification is that the phase transition temperature is far below the EW scale; this is stated but not quantified.
  • domain assumption CosmoTransitions provides reliable bounce actions for strongly supercooled potentials.
    S3/T and the thermodynamic parameters are taken from CosmoTransitions; no independent code cross-check is provided. See Gravitational waves section.
  • domain assumption The LISA Cosmology Working Group templates for bubble collisions and sound waves remain valid at alpha ~ 1e5.
    Templates were used directly; the most extreme best-fit has alpha = 2.6e5, outside the range where the templates are best validated.
  • domain assumption The dark sector thermalizes with the visible sector and becomes non-relativistic after the transition.
    Assumed to satisfy Delta Neff; g12 = 2e-10 is fixed to ensure Z' thermalization. See Introduction/model paragraphs.
  • domain assumption Only the sigma direction is relevant for the phase transition because the Higgs direction decouples.
    Stated in 'RG-improved thermal potential': only the sigma direction is considered due to the strong scale hierarchy Mh1 >> Mh2.
  • ad hoc to paper The scan requires TRH < M and alpha < 1e8 to keep the signal in the nHz band.
    These requirements are imposed on the scan rather than derived from first principles; they shape the confidence regions. See Numerical results.
invented entities (3)
  • Dark U(1)' gauge symmetry with Z' boson
    purpose: Provides the conformal dark sector whose radiative symmetry breaking drives the supercooled FOPT.
    The Z' mass is around 107 MeV and kinetic mixing is 2e-10, making direct detection extremely challenging; the only claimed evidence is the NANOGrav fit presented here.
  • Dark scalon h2
    purpose: Light scalar that sets the phase transition scale and contributes to the GW spectrum.
    Mass around 12 MeV; no experimental search or independent observable is presented.
  • Classical conformal symmetry in the dark sector
    purpose: Ensures the potential barrier persists to low temperatures, enabling strong supercooling and low TRH.
    Imposed as part of the model; no independent evidence for exact scale invariance in the dark sector.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supercooled phase transitions in conformal dark sectors explain NANOGrav data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/64OLQ4OV

@misc{pith2026250111619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supercooled phase transitions in conformal dark sectors explain NANOGrav data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/64OLQ4OV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11619}
}
read the original abstract

According to recent lore, it is difficult to explain the evidence for a stochastic gravitational wave background obtained by pulsar timing arrays with supercooled first-order phase transitions (FOPTs). We demonstrate that supercooled FOPTs in dark U(1)' models with a conformal dark sector easily explain the nHz signal at NANOGrav.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Ratio of the Euclidean action to temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Scatter plots of the SGWB peak amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: SGWB spectra for the best-fit point in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum field nucleating and Wigner functions

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.5 of 10

    The one-loop over-the-barrier nucleation rate in a thermal QFT is Affleck’s formula generalized to fields, not Linde’s, and still carries quantum prefactor effects even when the bounce is classically symmetric.

  2. Can the universe be matter-dominated after a supercooled first-order phase transition?

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    After a supercooled first-order phase transition, the scalar field's equation of state is set by the bubble-wall Lorentz factor γ*, and matter domination is delayed until a/a* ≃ γ* in the free-streaming limit.

  3. Beyond the Daisy Chain: Running and the 3D EFT View of Supercooled Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With renormalisation-group running included, the one-loop high-temperature Daisy-resummed potential at µ=πT reproduces the phase-transition parameters of the two-loop dimensionally reduced EFT, while the no-running on...

  4. Can a secluded self-interacting dark sector generate detectable gravitational waves?

    hep-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a secluded self-interacting dark sector with a dark U(1)' and dark radiation, existing Neff and Lyman-alpha limits remove nearly all gravitational-wave-detectable parameter space; one charge assignment keeps a smal...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [10]

    Gouttenoire, Phys

    Y. Gouttenoire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171404 (2023), 2307.04239

    arXiv 2023

  2. [9]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. Hütsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veermäe, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023522 (2024), 2308.08546

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    PT") or that the contribution from SMBHBs is included (labeled

    If λh < yt, where yt is the top Yukawa coupling, the top quark loop is the dominant contribution to the Higgs mass, which comes with a negative sign and alters its vacuum stability, such that no valid solution exists. 2) If λh > yt, the scalar loop is the dominant contribution and valid solutions are possible. However, as shown in Ref. [13], the Higgs mas...

    arXiv 2025

  4. [2]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. (EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A50 (2023), 2306.16214

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    (15) ∗ Electronic address: jpedropino@ua.pt † Electronic address: dmarf8@hawaii.edu ‡ Electronic address: amorais@fisica.uminho.pt § Electronic address: Roman.Pasechnik@fysik.lu.se

    + 1 2 g12g2 L , (10) β(1)(yt) = 3 2 y3 t + yt h − 17 20 g2 1 − 17 20 g2 12 − 9 4 g2 2− 8g2 3 + 3y2 t i , (11) β(1)(λh) = 27 200 g4 1 + 9 20 g2 1g2 2 + 9 8 g4 2 − 9 5 g2 1λh− 9 5 g2 12λh − 9g2 2λh + 24λ2 h + λ2 σh+ 12λhy2 t − 6y4 t , (12) β(1)(λσ) = 2 h 3g4 L − 6g2 Lλσ + 10λ2 σ + λ2 σh i , (13) β(1)(λσh) = λσh 10 h − 9g2 1 − 9g2 12 − 45g2 2 − 60g2 L+ 120λh...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), 2306.16213

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    Afzal et al

    A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L11(2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett.971, L27(2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], 2306.16219

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    D. J. Reardon et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), 2306.16215

    arXiv 2023

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    Xu et al., Res

    H. Xu et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), 2306.16216

    2023 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Kobakhidze, C

    A. Kobakhidze, C. Lagger, A. Manning, and J. Yue, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 570 (2017), 1703.06552

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 251802 (2023), 2308.04775

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    , (7) β(1)(g2) = − 19 6 g2 2 , (8) β(1)(g3) = −7g2 3 , (9) β(1)(g12) = 41 10 g12(g2 1 + g2

  5. [13]

    Athron, A

    P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C.-T. Lu, L. Morris, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221001 (2024), 2306.17239

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gonçalves, D

    J. Gonçalves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasech- nik, JHEP 02, 110 (2025), 2412.02645

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gildener and S

    E. Gildener and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13, 3333 (1976)

    1976

  8. [16]

    V.Elias, R.B.Mann, D.G.C.McKeon, andT.G.Steele, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 251601 (2003), hep-ph/0304153

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888 (1973)

    1973

  10. [18]

    Redondo and M

    J. Redondo and M. Postma, JCAP 02, 005 (2009), 0811.0326

    2009 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pagano, L

    L. Pagano, L. Salvati, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Lett. B 760, 823 (2016), 1508.02393

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gould and T

    O. Gould and T. V. I. Tenkanen, JHEP06, 069 (2021), 2104.04399

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White, JHEP04, 055 (2021), 2009.10080

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. Swiezewska, JHEP 03, 007 (2023), 2210.07075

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chataignier, T

    L. Chataignier, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt, and B. Świeżewska, JHEP08, 083 (2018), 1805.09292

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chataignier, T

    L. Chataignier, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt, and B. Swiezewska, JHEP03, 014 (2018), 1801.05258

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and V. Vaskonen, JCAP11, 020 (2020), 2007.15586

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Quiros, pp

    M. Quiros, pp. 187–259 (1999), hep-ph/9901312

    1999 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D47, 3546 (1993), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 50, 6662 (1994)], hep- ph/9212235

    1993

  20. [28]

    C. L. Wainwright, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 2006 (2012), 1109.4189

    2012 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Mer- chand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen (LISA Cosmology Working Group) (2024), 2403.03723

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    N. Levi, T. Opferkuch, and D. Redigolo, JHEP02, 125 (2023), 2212.08085

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Garcia-Bellido, H

    J. Garcia-Bellido, H. Murayama, and G. White, JCAP 12, 023 (2021), 2104.04778

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Weltman et al., Publ

    A. Weltman et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e002 (2020), 1810.02680. 6

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Mitridate, D

    A. Mitridate, D. Wright, R. von Eckardstein, T. Schröder, J. Nay, K. Olum, K. Schmitz, and T. Trickle (2023), 2306.16377

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    W. G. Lamb, S. R. Taylor, and R. van Haasteren, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103019 (2023), 2303.15442

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.