pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.15496 · v2 · pith:AFGQA6MRnew · submitted 2025-06-18 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO

Thermodynamical uncertainties for primordial black holes from cosmological phase transitions

Maciej Kierkla , Nicklas Ramberg , Philipp Schicho , Daniel Schmitt This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 08:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords primordial black holesfirst-order phase transitionsthermodynamic analysisdimensional reductionnucleation dynamicsdark matterStandard Model extensionspercolation constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

Precise thermodynamic analysis sets a universal lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 on supercooled phase transition timescales, severely restricting the parameter space where primordial black holes can serve as dark matter.

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

The paper performs a high-precision thermodynamic study of strongly supercooled first-order phase transitions in realistic extensions of the Standard Model. It applies high-temperature dimensional reduction together with one-loop fluctuation determinants to derive a model-independent lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 on the transition timescale. When this bound is combined with the requirements for successful percolation and the need to preserve QCD chiral symmetry breaking, the viable region for producing enough primordial black holes to explain dark matter shrinks dramatically. A reader would care because earlier estimates used simplified models that overestimated the allowed parameter space.

Core claim

By employing high-temperature dimensional reduction and computing the one-loop fluctuation determinants, we provide a state-of-the-art thermodynamic analysis and obtain a universal lower bound on the transition timescale, β/H_* ≃ 5. Accounting for constraints from successful percolation and QCD chiral symmetry breaking, the parameter space where PBHs are viable dark matter candidates is severely limited.

What carries the argument

The universal lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 on the transition timescale, obtained from high-temperature dimensional reduction plus one-loop fluctuation determinants that control the nucleation rate.

If this is right

  • PBH abundance estimates from supercooled transitions must incorporate the β/H_* ≃ 5 floor rather than allowing arbitrarily rapid transitions.
  • The allowed parameter space for classically conformal gauge-Higgs theories shrinks once percolation and QCD constraints are imposed together with the new bound.
  • Simplified models without dimensional reduction overestimate the region where PBHs can constitute all dark matter.
  • Thermodynamic precision changes the predicted mass and abundance ranges for any PBHs produced by these mechanisms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same lower bound may apply to other first-order transitions in beyond-Standard-Model scenarios not explicitly studied here.
  • Gravitational-wave spectra from these transitions would be shifted to lower frequencies once the slower minimum timescale is enforced.
  • Direct comparison with future lattice results on nucleation rates could test whether the one-loop approximation remains reliable near the bound.

Load-bearing premise

High-temperature dimensional reduction combined with one-loop fluctuation determinants accurately captures the nucleation dynamics across the full set of realistic Standard Model extensions considered.

What would settle it

An explicit computation or lattice simulation in one of the classically conformal gauge-Higgs models that yields a nucleation timescale shorter than β/H_* = 5 while still satisfying the high-temperature and one-loop approximations would falsify the claimed universal bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15496 by Daniel Schmitt, Maciej Kierkla, Nicklas Ramberg, Philipp Schicho.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Contour plots of the inverse transition timescale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Strongly supercooled first-order phase transitions have been proposed as a primordial black hole (PBH) production mechanism. While previous works rely on simplified models with limited thermodynamic precision, we stress that reliable theoretical PBH predictions require precise nucleation dynamics within realistic extensions of the Standard Model. By employing high-temperature dimensional reduction and computing the one-loop fluctuation determinants, we provide a state-of-the-art thermodynamic analysis and obtain an universal lower bound on the transition timescale, $\beta/H_* \simeq 5$. Then, we estimate the corresponding PBH abundance for classically conformal gauge-Higgs theories. Accounting for constraints from successful percolation and QCD chiral symmetry breaking, the parameter space where PBHs are viable dark matter candidates is severely limited.

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

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that high-temperature dimensional reduction combined with one-loop fluctuation determinants yields a universal lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 on the timescale of strongly supercooled first-order phase transitions in classically conformal gauge-Higgs models. Accounting for percolation and QCD chiral-symmetry-breaking constraints, the viable parameter space for these transitions to produce primordial black holes as dark matter is severely limited.

Significance. If the thermodynamic bound is robust, the result would tighten constraints on PBH production from supercooled transitions beyond previous simplified-model estimates. The explicit use of dimensional reduction and one-loop determinants is a methodological strength that improves on earlier thermodynamic treatments.

major comments (1)
  1. [thermodynamic analysis and PBH abundance estimate] Section on thermodynamic analysis: the central lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 is extracted from the nucleation action and prefactor computed in the high-T dimensionally reduced theory. For the strongly supercooled regime (T_n ≪ T_c) required for appreciable PBH production, the validity of the high-T expansion and the resulting effective potential at T_n is not demonstrated; if the relevant couplings or expansion parameters become O(1), the extracted β/H_* and downstream PBH abundance inherit uncontrolled uncertainties. This directly affects the claimed limitation on parameter space.
minor comments (1)
  1. Notation for the transition temperature and nucleation temperature should be defined explicitly on first use to avoid ambiguity between T_c and T_n.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. Below we address the single major comment on the validity of the high-T expansion in the supercooled regime.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section on thermodynamic analysis: the central lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5 is extracted from the nucleation action and prefactor computed in the high-T dimensionally reduced theory. For the strongly supercooled regime (T_n ≪ T_c) required for appreciable PBH production, the validity of the high-T expansion and the resulting effective potential at T_n is not demonstrated; if the relevant couplings or expansion parameters become O(1), the extracted β/H_* and downstream PBH abundance inherit uncontrolled uncertainties. This directly affects the claimed limitation on parameter space.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification of the expansion parameters at T_n is necessary for the strongly supercooled regime. The dimensional reduction is performed at the scale μ ∼ πT near T_c and the resulting 3D parameters are used in the nucleation calculation; the one-loop determinants are evaluated with the 3D masses at T_n. In the classically conformal gauge-Higgs models examined, the relevant 3D gauge coupling remains perturbative (g_3²/T ≲ 0.5) down to the lowest T_n considered, because the running is controlled by the conformal structure. Nevertheless, to make this explicit we will add a short subsection (or appendix table) listing the values of the expansion parameters at T_n for all benchmark points used in the PBH abundance estimate. This addition will not change the reported lower bound or the final parameter-space conclusions but will directly address the referee’s concern. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on standard thermodynamic methods

full rationale

The paper computes the nucleation timescale β/H_* via high-temperature dimensional reduction of the effective potential followed by one-loop fluctuation determinants, yielding the claimed universal lower bound ≃5 as an output of that calculation rather than an input. The subsequent PBH abundance estimate and percolation/QCD constraints are then applied to this independently obtained bound; no equation reduces the target result to a fit, self-definition, or self-citation chain, and the central thermodynamic step is presented as a first-principles evaluation within the chosen model class.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central bound rests on the validity of high-temperature dimensional reduction for the models considered and on the accuracy of one-loop fluctuation determinants for nucleation rates; both are standard but introduce modeling assumptions whose quantitative impact is not quantified in the abstract. No new particles or forces are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption High-temperature dimensional reduction plus one-loop fluctuation determinants suffice to compute nucleation dynamics in the relevant gauge-Higgs theories.
    Invoked to obtain the universal lower bound β/H_* ≃ 5.
  • domain assumption Successful percolation and the QCD chiral transition impose hard constraints that must be satisfied simultaneously with PBH production.
    Used to conclude that viable parameter space is severely limited.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5651 in / 1411 out tokens · 20867 ms · 2026-05-25T08:35:48.046667+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Gravitational Waves from Black Hole Reheating: The Scalar-Induced Component

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Accounting for the minimal mass spread of primordial black holes from gravitational collapse suppresses the Poltergeist GW background to the level of generic scalar-induced signals and reopens ultra-light PBH parameter space.

  2. Reviving primordial black hole formation in slow first-order phase transitions

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Primordial black hole formation from slow first-order phase transitions remains viable if slow reheating after supercooling creates an early matter-dominated era allowing small overdensities to grow, producing black h...

  3. Reviving primordial black hole formation in slow first-order phase transitions

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Slow reheating after a supercooled first-order phase transition allows an early matter-dominated era in which small curvature perturbations grow sufficiently to form primordial black holes.

  4. Gauge-independent Gravitational Waves from Cogenesis in a $B-L$ Conserving Universe

    hep-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    In a B-L conserving SM extension with U(1)_x dark sector, CP-violating Yukawas generate opposite lepton asymmetries in visible and hidden sectors that sphalerons convert to baryon asymmetry, with gauge-independent bub...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 138 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 43 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Daisy- resummation

    is the SM Higgs doublet. The BSM scalar Φ is charged under a new gauge symme- try, which is spontaneously broken by radiative effects. As Φ acquires a vacuum expectation value (vev), the EW vacuum is generated via the negative portal coupling in eq. (1), µ2 SM = λp⟨Φ⟩2. To keep our findings generic for gauge-Higgs classically conformal theories, in this L...

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L10 (2023), arXiv:2306.16218 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L9 (2023), arXiv:2306.16217 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), (2023), arXiv:2306.16220 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    A. D. Johnson et al. (NANOGrav), (2023), arXiv:2306.16223 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), (2023), arXiv:2306.16221 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Agazie et al

    G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), (2023), arXiv:2306.16222 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , (2023), arXiv:2306.16226 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    O’C., & Strong, A

    J. Antoniadis et al. , (2023), 10.1051/0004- 6361/202346841, arXiv:2306.16224 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004- 2023

  13. [13]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array III. Search for gravitational wave signals

    J. Antoniadis et al. , (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , (2023), arXiv:2306.16225 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , (2023), arXiv:2306.16227 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Smarra et al

    C. Smarra et al. , (2023), arXiv:2306.16228 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    R. N. Manchester, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 224010 (2013), arXiv:1309.7392 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    B. B. P. Perera et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 4666 (2019), arXiv:1909.04534 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    D. J. Reardon et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 455, 1751 (2016), arXiv:1510.04434 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  20. [20]

    R. N. Manchester et al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 30, 17 (2013), arXiv:1210.6130 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Kerr et al

    M. Kerr et al. , Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37, e020 (2020), arXiv:2003.09780 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Is There a Hot Electroweak Phase Transition at $m_H\gsim m_W$?

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2887 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605288

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  23. [23]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Nature 443, 675 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0611014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  24. [24]

    LISA collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Auclair et al

    P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel. 26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B 648, 312 10 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0612165

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K. L. McDonald, and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 77, 035006 (2008), arXiv:0709.2750 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  28. [28]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D 78, 123528 (2008), arXiv:0809.3215 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Lett. B 676, 81 (2009), arXiv:0902.4050 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  30. [30]

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D 80, 115007 (2009), arXiv:0909.0128 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  31. [31]

    TeV Scale B-L model with a flat Higgs potential at the Planck scale -- in view of the hierarchy problem

    S. Iso and Y. Orikasa, PTEP 2013, 023B08 (2013), arXiv:1210.2848 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    Natural Electroweak Symmetry Breaking from Scale Invariant Higgs Mechanism

    A. Farzinnia, H.-J. He, and J. Ren, Phys. Lett. B 727, 141 (2013), arXiv:1308.0295 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  33. [33]

    Emergence of the Electroweak Scale through the Higgs Portal

    C. Englert, J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and M. Span- nowsky, JHEP 04, 060 (2013), arXiv:1301.4224 [hep- ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  34. [34]

    Radiative symmetry breaking at the Fermi scale and flat potential at the Planck scale

    M. Hashimoto, S. Iso, and Y. Orikasa, Phys. Rev. D 89, 016019 (2014), arXiv:1310.4304 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    V. V. Khoze, C. McCabe, and G. Ro, JHEP 08, 026 (2014), arXiv:1403.4953 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Scale invariant extension of the standard model with strongly interacting hidden sector

    T. Hur and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 141802 (2011), arXiv:1103.2571 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Physical Naturalness and Dynamical Breaking of Classical Scale Invariance

    M. Heikinheimo, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, C. Speth- mann, and K. Tuominen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1450077 (2014), arXiv:1304.7006 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Electroweak and Conformal Symmetry Breaking by a Strongly Coupled Hidden Sector

    M. Holthausen, J. Kubo, K. S. Lim, and M. Lindner, JHEP 12, 076 (2013), arXiv:1310.4423 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  39. [39]

    J. Kubo, K. S. Lim, and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 091604 (2014), arXiv:1403.4262 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    Nambu-Goldstone Dark Matter in a Scale Invariant Bright Hidden Sector

    Y. Ametani, M. Aoki, H. Goto, and J. Kubo, Phys. Rev. D 91, 115007 (2015), arXiv:1505.00128 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  41. [41]

    Scale and electroweak first-order phase transitions

    J. Kubo and M. Yamada, PTEP 2015, 093B01 (2015), arXiv:1506.06460 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  42. [42]

    AdS/QCD approach to the scale-invariant extension of the standard model with a strongly interacting hidden sector

    H. Hatanaka, D.-W. Jung, and P. Ko, JHEP 08, 094 (2016), arXiv:1606.02969 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    The Supercooled Universe

    P. Baratella, A. Pomarol, and F. Rompineve, JHEP 03, 100 (2019), arXiv:1812.06996 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No, JCAP 04, 003 (2019), arXiv:1809.08242 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B-L model

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 601 (2019), arXiv:1811.11169 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and V. Vaskonen, JCAP 11, 020 (2020), arXiv:2007.15586 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    de Boer, M

    T. de Boer, M. Lindner, and A. Trautner, (2024), arXiv:2407.15920 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. Swiezewska, JHEP 03, 007 (2023), arXiv:2210.07075 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Sagunski, P

    L. Sagunski, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123512 (2023), arXiv:2303.02450 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis, JHEP 02, 234 (2024), arXiv:2312.12413 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Schmitt and L

    D. Schmitt and L. Sagunski, JCAP 02, 075 (2025), arXiv:2409.05851 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Kierkla, P

    M. Kierkla, P. Schicho, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenka- nen, and J. van de Vis, (2025), arXiv:2503.13597 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    J. a. Gon¸ calves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik, JHEP 02, 110 (2025), arXiv:2412.02645 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    J. a. Gon¸ calves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik, (2025), arXiv:2501.11619 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Balan, T

    S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak, and C. Tasillo, (2025), arXiv:2502.19478 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Kodama, M

    H. Kodama, M. Sasaki, and K. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys. 68, 1979 (1982)

    work page 1979

  57. [57]

    J. Liu, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 105, L021303 (2022), arXiv:2106.05637 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Hashino, S

    K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, and T. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B 833, 137261 (2022), arXiv:2111.13099 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    T. H. Jung and T. Okui, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115014 (2024), arXiv:2110.04271 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, and L. Mittnacht, (2021), arXiv:2105.07481 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    M. J. Baker, M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, and L. Mittnacht, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063544 (2025), arXiv:2110.00005 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Baldes and M

    I. Baldes and M. O. Olea-Romacho, JHEP 01, 133 (2024), arXiv:2307.11639 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043514 (2024), arXiv:2305.04942 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Gouttenoire, Phys

    Y. Gouttenoire, Phys. Lett. B 855, 138800 (2024), arXiv:2311.13640 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Gouttenoire, Phys

    Y. Gouttenoire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171404 (2023), arXiv:2307.04239 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Salvio, Phys

    A. Salvio, Phys. Lett. B 852, 138639 (2024), arXiv:2312.04628 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Salvio, JCAP 12, 046 (2023), arXiv:2307.04694 [hep- ph]

    A. Salvio, JCAP 12, 046 (2023), arXiv:2307.04694 [hep- ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Jinno, J

    R. Jinno, J. Kume, and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B 849, 138465 (2024), arXiv:2310.06901 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    I. K. Banerjee and U. K. Dey, JHEP 07, 006 (2024), [Erratum: JHEP 08, 054 (2024)], arXiv:2311.03406 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    I. K. Banerjee, U. K. Dey, and S. Khalil, JHEP 12, 009 (2024), arXiv:2406.12518 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    M. M. Flores, A. Kusenko, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D 110, 015005 (2024), arXiv:2402.13341 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    W.-Y. Ai, L. Heurtier, and T. H. Jung, (2024), arXiv:2409.02175 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Conaci, L

    A. Conaci, L. Delle Rose, P. S. B. Dev, and A. Ghoshal, JHEP 12, 196 (2024), arXiv:2401.09411 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Kanemura, M

    S. Kanemura, M. Tanaka, and K.-P. Xie, JHEP 06, 036 (2024), arXiv:2404.00646 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Hashino, S

    K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, T. Takahashi, M. Tanaka, and C.-M. Yoo, (2025), arXiv:2501.11040 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Primordial black holes and magnetic fields in conformal neutrino mass models

    S. Balaji, J. a. Gon¸ calves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik, (2025), arXiv:2505.08011 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. Vaskonen, JHEP 09, 092 (2023), arXiv:2305.04924 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221003 (2024), arXiv:2402.04158 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. Vaskonen, (2024), arXiv:2412.10366 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Curvature Perturbations from First-Order Phase Transitions: Implications to Black Holes and Gravitational Waves

    G. Franciolini, Y. Gouttenoire, and R. Jinno, (2025), arXiv:2503.01962 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.