Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Gravitational Wave Spectrum from the Production of Dark Matter via the freeze-in Mechanism

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Freeze-in dark matter production inevitably radiates gravitons, leaving a high-frequency gravitational-wave background; in the ultraviolet scenario the peak, near 50 billion hertz, rises with the cube of the reheating temperature and may be

desk verdict Careful and mostly correct calculation of the freeze-in graviton-bremsstrahlung spectrum with a useful UV scaling law, but the headline UV benchmark is in the uncontrolled EFT regime and one printed peak value is off by ten orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10665 v1 pith:EBLQV3BN submitted 2025-08-14 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Yonghua Wang , Wei Chao This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE
keywords freeze-indarkmattergravitonbremsstrahlungultraviolethigh-frequencygravitationalwavesreheatingtemperaturestochasticwavebackgroundFIMPcavitydetectors
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

The paper argues that freeze-in dark matter—particles so weakly coupled that they never reached thermal equilibrium—cannot be produced without also emitting gravitons, so the production epoch leaves a fossil gravitational-wave background. It computes that background for standard (IR) freeze-in, where a thermal scalar decays through a tiny Yukawa coupling, and for UV freeze-in, where scattering is mediated by a dimension-5 operator suppressed by a cutoff scale $\Lambda$. For IR freeze-in the peak is $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\simeq1.2\times10^{-29}$ at $f\simeq1.2\times10^{10}$ Hz, far below any planned detector. For UV freeze-in the peak is $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\simeq7.1\times10^{-17}(T_R/10^{16}\,{\rm GeV})^3(\Lambda/10^{16}\,{\rm GeV})^{-2}$ at $f\simeq5.35\times10^{10}$ Hz, large enough that next-generation high-frequency cavity detectors could plausibly see it. If correct, a detected high-frequency background would be an indirect handle on freeze-in dark matter and on the reheating temperature after inflation.

What carries the argument

The machinery is graviton bremsstrahlung computed in linearized gravity: the graviton couples to matter through $\mathcal{L}_{\rm int}=(\sqrt{2}/M_P)h_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu}$, so a freeze-in production vertex (a decay in the IR case, a $2\to2$ scattering in the UV case) can emit a graviton, and the emitted graviton inherits the production event's energy scale. The calculation builds the squared amplitudes from the graviton vertices for scalar, fermion and complex-scalar fields, then feeds them into the Boltzmann equation for the graviton energy density. The IR rate involves the modified Bessel function $K_1(m_\phi/T)$; the UV rate involves a Meijer G-function after the thermal phase-space integr

What would settle it

A high-frequency gravitational-wave search at $f\simeq5\times10^{10}$ Hz reaching $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\simeq10^{-17}$ would settle the UV claim: a null result excludes the benchmark $T_R=\Lambda=10^{16}$ GeV (with $m_\chi$ fixed by the relic abundance), while a detection at the predicted peak frequency would confirm it. In parallel, computing the $2\to3$ amplitude in a concrete UV completion of Eq.~(9) with $\Lambda\sim10^{16}$ GeV would test the effective-theory assumption; a substantially different amplitude would change Eq.~(34).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is the gravitational-wave relic density from the graviton bremsstrahlung process that accompanies freeze-in. In the IR case, the decay $\phi\to\psi\bar\psi$ with Yukawa coupling $y$ produces gravitons; the present-day spectrum peaks at $$\Omega_{\rm GW}$h^{2}$(f_{\rm peak})=1.2\$times10^{{-29}}$\left(\frac{y}{$10^{{-6}}$}\right)^2\frac{m_\phi}{$10^{{14}}$\,{\rm GeV}}$$ at $f_{\rm peak}\simeq1.2\times10^{10}$ Hz, with a maximum frequency of about $2.3\times10^{11}$ Hz. In the UV case, the $2\to2$ scattering $f\bar f\to\chi\chi^\dagger$ from the dimension-5 operator $\mathcal{L}\supset \frac{1}{\Lambda}\chi^\dagger\bar f f$ yields $$\Omega_{\rm GW}$h^{2}$(f_{\rm peak})=7.1\$times10^{{-17}}$

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on two assumptions: the parent scalar stays in thermal equilibrium while it decays (IR), and the single higher-dimensional interaction remains valid all the way up to the reheating temperature, including energies where its correction terms are no longer small (UV); if either fails, the predicted peak heights and shapes change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the dark matter comes from UV freeze-in, a high-frequency stochastic background at $f\simeq5\times10^{10}$ Hz with amplitude given by Eq.~(34) exists and is a target for future cavity detectors.
  • A detection would measure a combination of the reheating temperature and the cutoff scale, since $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\propto T_R^3/\Lambda^2$, and the relic-density constraint fixes $m_\chi T_R/\Lambda^2$.
  • The IR freeze-in background peaks near $1.2\times10^{10}$ Hz at $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\sim1.2\times10^{-29}$, far below current and proposed interferometer and cavity sensitivities and below the BBN bound, so this channel will remain undetectable in the near term.
  • The two mechanisms produce spectra with different peak frequencies and shapes, so a future broadband high-frequency measurement could discriminate IR from UV freeze-in.
  • Every benchmark amplitude quoted for the peaks is tied to the observed relic density $\Omega_{\rm DM}h^2\simeq0.12$; observing the background would combine with the relic density to fix model parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's benchmark with $\Lambda=T_R=10^{16}$ GeV sits at the edge of the controlled effective-theory regime, since $s/\Lambda^2\sim1$ at the highest energies; a UV completion that suppresses or enhances the amplitude would shift Eq.~(34) up or down.
  • A null result from a cavity experiment reaching $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\sim10^{-17}$ at $5\times10^{10}$ Hz would push UV freeze-in toward lower reheating temperatures or larger cutoffs, indirectly disfavouring the corresponding super-heavy freeze-in parameter space.
  • The same bremsstrahlung logic should apply to other feebly coupled production operators (for example dimension-6 contacts or light-mediator portals), so the high-frequency GW spectrum may act as a fingerprint of the operator structure that produces dark matter.
  • Solving the full coupled Boltzmann system for $\phi$ and $\psi$ would test the IR equilibrium assumption; if $\phi$ is not fully thermalized, both the DM yield and the GW peak would move relative to the curves shown.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper calculates the gravitational-wave (GW) spectrum from graviton bremsstrahlung accompanying dark-matter production via the freeze-in mechanism. Two scenarios are treated: IR freeze-in, where a thermal scalar φ decays to fermionic DM (φ→ψψ̄+g), and UV freeze-in, where DM is produced by 2→2 scattering mediated by a dimension-5 operator (ff̄→χχ†+g). The authors provide detailed Feynman rules, phase-space integrations, and closed-form results for the present-day GW relic density. The central quantitative claims are: the IR spectrum peaks at Ω_GW h² ≈ 1.2×10⁻²⁹ (Eq. 26), and the UV spectrum peaks at Ω_GW h² = 7.1×10⁻¹⁷ (T_R/10¹⁶ GeV)³ (Λ²/10³² GeV²)⁻¹ at f_peak ≈ 5.35×10¹⁰ Hz (Eq. 34), potentially within reach of future high-frequency cavity detectors.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, it offers a new indirect probe of freeze-in DM and of the reheating temperature: the GW spectrum from graviton bremsstrahlung is a direct consequence of the DM production vertices, and its peak frequency and amplitude depend cleanly on T_R and Λ. The manuscript is valuable for presenting a complete derivation with Feynman rules, cross-checks with FeynCalc, and explicit spectra. However, two issues must be resolved before the result can be relied upon: an internal numerical inconsistency in the quoted UV peak amplitudes, and the use of an EFT benchmark where the dimension-5 operator is not under control. The IR calculation also rests on an unverified thermal-equilibrium assumption for the parent scalar. These issues affect the paper's main quantitative claims, including its detectability statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (34) and Fig. 6] The peak values listed after Eq. (34) are mutually inconsistent. Eq. (34) scales as Λ⁻², so for fixed T_R=10¹⁶ GeV the peak should be 7.1×10⁻¹⁷ (Λ=10¹⁶ GeV), 7.1×10⁻¹⁹ (Λ=10¹⁷ GeV), and 7.1×10⁻²¹ (Λ=10¹⁸ GeV). The text states the middle value as 7.1×10⁻²⁹. This is a load-bearing numerical error because it affects the claimed detectability of the Λ=10¹⁷ line; Eq. (33), Eq. (34), and Fig. 6 must be rechecked.
  2. [§5.2, Eq. (9) and Eqs. (30)–(33)] The green benchmark in Fig. 6 uses Λ=T_R=10¹⁶ GeV. In the thermal average that produces the collision term, typical Mandelstam s is O(T_R²), so s/Λ²=O(1). At that point the dimension-5 operator of Eq. (9) is not the leading term of a controlled EFT; dimension-6 operators and the UV completion contribute at the same order. The amplitude Eq. (27), the resulting Ω_GW peak 7.1×10⁻¹⁷, and the detectability claim built on this benchmark are therefore not robust. The UV prediction should be presented for Λ≫T_R (e.g. Λ≥10¹⁷ GeV) or with an explicit UV completion.
  3. [§3 / III.A, Eqs. (1)–(4) and (20)] The IR calculation assumes the parent scalar φ has a thermal equilibrium distribution f_φ=e^{-E/T}. With the benchmark y=10⁻⁶, m_φ=10¹⁴ GeV, the decay rate Γ_{φ→ψψ̄}≈y²m_φ/(8π)≈4 GeV is far below the Hubble rate at T∼m_φ (H∼10¹⁰ GeV), so φ is not kept in equilibrium by this coupling. The paper does not specify the additional interactions that maintain φ in the bath. Without these, Eq. (20) and the IR spectrum Eq. (26) rest on an unverified assumption; a coupled Boltzmann treatment or a clear model prescription for φ's thermalization is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract states the spectra 'fall beyond the detection limits of currently proposed gravitational wave experiments', while the introduction says the UV freeze-in signal 'exhibits large amplitude to be detectable by next-generation cavity-based gravitational wave experiments'. Please reconcile these statements.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption] Typo: 'grivoton' should be 'graviton'.
  3. [§5.1, Eq. (25)] The text says f_max is independent of m_φ, but the derivation uses m_φ through T_D=0.04m_φ. Please clarify the intended meaning (e.g., independent of m_φ after fixing the ratio m_φ/T_D).
  4. [§5.2, Eq. (30)] The step from the phase-space integral to the Meijer G-function is not shown in detail. A reference or a brief outline of the reduction would help readers verify the result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The DM relic density is taken as an external input from Planck observations (Eqs. 7 and 15), which fixes combinations of model parameters (y^2 m_psi/m_phi and m_chi T_R/Lambda^2). The gravitational-wave spectra are then computed from the same interaction vertices through the Boltzmann equations (Eqs. 18–24 for IR, Eqs. 28–33 for UV) and are expressed in terms of the free parameters (m_phi, y) or (T_R, Lambda) without being fitted to any gravitational-wave data. The quoted peak amplitudes, Eqs. (26) and (34), follow analytically from the collision terms and redshift factors, not from requiring agreement with measured GW signals. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., [19], [42]) are background or methodological and do not carry the central claim. There are valid concerns about EFT control at the Lambda = T_R benchmark and an internal numerical inconsistency in the peak values (7.1e-29 vs. expected 7.1e-19 for Lambda = 1e17 GeV), but these are correctness/validity risks, not circularity. No step reduces to its own input by definition or by fitting.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper uses standard freeze-in toy models (a heavy scalar, a fermion dark matter candidate, and a complex scalar with a dimension-5 operator) rather than introducing new particles or forces. The loaded assumptions are the thermal-equilibrium treatment of the parent scalar, Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, the validity of the effective operator at T_R ~ 10^16 GeV, and the use of the observed DM relic abundance to fix parameter combinations.

free parameters (6)
  • IR Yukawa coupling y = 10^-6 (benchmark)
    Chosen with m_phi and m_psi to satisfy the DM relic-density relation Eq. (7); not fitted to GW data.
  • IR parent scalar mass m_phi = 10^14 GeV (benchmark); scanned 10^12-10^14 GeV
    Model parameter in the freeze-in Lagrangian; affects both DM yield and GW spectrum.
  • IR dark matter mass m_psi = 150 GeV (benchmark)
    Chosen with y and m_phi to match Omega_DM h^2 = 0.12 through Eq. (7).
  • UV cutoff scale Lambda = 10^18 GeV (benchmark); also 10^16 and 10^17 GeV in Fig. 6
    Cutoff of the dimension-5 operator; constrained by the relic-density relation Eq. (15).
  • UV dark matter mass m_chi = 15 MeV (benchmark)
    Chosen with Lambda and T_R to satisfy the relic-density relation Eq. (15).
  • Reheating temperature T_R = 10^16 GeV (benchmark)
    Sets the initial temperature for UV freeze-in and appears cubed in the peak amplitude Eq. (34).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard FRW cosmology with radiation domination and constant entropy; SM g* values are used.
    Used throughout the Boltzmann equations and redshift factors in Secs. II and III.
  • domain assumption Initial-state plasma particles follow Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.
    Assumed in the collision terms in Sec. III and Appendix B, following standard freeze-in treatments.
  • domain assumption The parent scalar phi in the IR scenario is in thermal equilibrium and decays out at m_phi/T_D ~ 25, with back-reaction neglected.
    Underlies the integration limits x_i = 0 and x_f = 25 in Eq. (23) and the neglect of the inverse collision term in Eq. (19).
  • ad hoc to paper The dimension-5 operator in Eq. (9) is a valid effective theory up to the reheating temperature.
    Needed for the UV 2 to 3 amplitude; questionable for the Lambda = 10^16 GeV benchmark, where s/Lambda^2 is order one.
  • domain assumption The observed DM relic density Omega_DM h^2 = 0.12 is an external anchor used to fix parameter combinations.
    Used in Eqs. (7) and (15) to set benchmark couplings and masses; this is standard input, not a prediction of the paper.
  • domain assumption Gravitons free-stream after production and do not interact further.
    Assumed when converting the production yield to a present-day spectrum in Eqs. (24) and (33).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Wave Spectrum from the Production of Dark Matter via the freeze-in Mechanism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EBLQV3BN

@misc{pith2026250810665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Wave Spectrum from the Production of Dark Matter via the freeze-in Mechanism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EBLQV3BN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10665}
}
read the original abstract

Since the first detection of gravitational waves by ground-based interferometers, it has emerged as a novel probe for exploring physics in the early universe. The particle nature of cold dark matter (DM) and its underlying production mechanisms remain long-standing unresolved issues in the field. Notably, if DM is generated through the freeze-in mechanism in the early universe, direct laboratory detection becomes extraordinarily challenging due to its extremely weak coupling with standard model particles. In this study, we calculate the graviton bremsstrahlung process involved in the freeze-in production of dark matter, deriving the gravitational wave spectra for both the conventional freeze-in mechanism and ultraviolet freeze-in scenarios. Our analysis reveals that these spectra exhibit distinct characteristics, though they fall beyond the detection limits of currently proposed gravitational wave experiments. However, advancements in high-frequency gravitational wave detection technologies in the future may offer a means to indirectly probe the ultraviolet freeze-in mechanism.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Torsion induced one-loop corrections to inflaton decay and the Stochastic gravitational waves

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Torsion-induced one-loop corrections can suppress the stochastic gravitational wave signal from inflaton decay by up to two orders of magnitude relative to tree-level predictions.

  2. Gravitational waves from graviton bremsstrahlung in scalar leptoquark decays

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Scalar leptoquarks in SU(5) GUT produce a stochastic gravitational wave background via graviton bremsstrahlung whose spectrum may be accessible to resonant-cavity detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [61]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. ��� , B516 (1965)

    work page 1965

  2. [1]

    Navas �� ���(Particle Data Group), Phys

    S. Navas �� ���(Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D ��� , 030001 (2024)

    2024

  3. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. �� , 1440 (1977)

    1977

  4. [3]

    Preskill, M

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

    1983

  5. [4]

    The constraint from 11 ¯� � � † � � � � � † ¯� � � ¯� � † � � � ¯� � � † � � ¯� � � † � FIG

    And we compare the GW spectrum with the sensitivity of various experiments, including LISA [62], the Einstein Telescope (ET) [63–66], the Big Bang Observer (BBO) [67–69], ultimate DECIGO (uDECIGO) [70, 71], and resonant cavities [72–74]. The constraint from 11 ¯� � � † � � � � � † ¯� � � ¯� � † � � � ¯� � � † � � ¯� � � † � FIG. 5. Feynman diagrams for gr...

  6. [5]

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B ��� , 199 (1981). 21

    1981

  7. [6]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. ��� , 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    Ilten, Y

    P. Ilten, Y. Soreq, M. Williams, and W. Xue, JHEP �� , 004 (2018), arXiv:1801.04847 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 89 references
  1. [8]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. �� , 1158 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0003365

    2000

  2. [9]

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D �� , 043541 (2017), arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [10]

    T. D. Lee and Y. Pang, Phys. Rept. ��� , 251 (1992)

    1992

  4. [11]

    Kusenko and M

    A. Kusenko and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B ��� , 46 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9709492

    1998 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Kusenko and P

    A. Kusenko and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. �� , 141301 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0106008

    2001 arXiv

  6. [13]

    B. Carr, F. Kuhnel, and M. Sandstad, Phys. Rev. D �� , 083504 (2016), arXiv:1607.06077 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav. �� , 063001 (2018), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    J. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ji, Nature Phys. �� , 212 (2017), arXiv:1709.00688 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Physics Reports ��� , 195 (1996)

    1996

  10. [17]

    Zhong �� ���(HAYSTAC), Phys

    L. Zhong �� ���(HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. D �� , 092001 (2018), arXiv:1803.03690 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [18]

    B. T. McAllister, G. Flower, J. Kruger, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill, and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Dark Univ. �� , 67 (2017), arXiv:1706.00209 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. Chen, H. Fukuda, T. Inada, T. Moroi, T. Nitta, and T. Sichanugrist, Phys. Rev. D ��� , 115021 (2024), arXiv:2407.19755 [hep-ph]

    2024

  13. [20]

    W. Chao, Y. Gao, M.-j. Jin, X.-s. Liu, and X.-l. Sun, (2024), arXiv:2412.20850 [hep-ph]

    2024

  14. [21]

    Knapen, T

    S. Knapen, T. Lin, M. Pyle, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B ��� , 386 (2018), arXiv:1712.06598 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz �� , 986 (1965)

    1965

  16. [23]

    Chiu, Physical Review Letters �� , 712 (1966)

    H.-Y. Chiu, Physical Review Letters �� , 712 (1966)

    1966

  17. [24]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, Journal of High Energy Physics ���� , 1 (2010)

    2010

  18. [25]

    L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West, JHEP �� , 080 (2010), arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  19. [26]

    A. E. Nelson and J. Scholtz, Phys. Rev. D �� , 103501 (2011), arXiv:1105.2812 [hep-ph]. 22

    2011 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Y. Cai, M. Zhu, and Y.-S. Piao, Phys. Rev. Lett. ��� , 021001 (2024), arXiv:2305.10933 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Lewicki, P

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

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Cotner and A

    E. Cotner and A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. D �� , 103002 (2017), arXiv:1706.09003 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [30]

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

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Barman, N

    B. Barman, N. Bernal, Y. Xu, and ´O. Zapata, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics ���� , 019 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    X.-J. Xu, Y. Xu, Q. Yin, and J. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2505.08868 [hep-ph]

    2025

  26. [33]

    Huang and L

    D. Huang and L. Yin, Physical Review D ��� , 043538 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Barman, N

    B. Barman, N. Bernal, Y. Xu, and ´O. Zapata, Phys. Rev. D ��� , 083524 (2023), arXiv:2305.16388 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Bernal, S

    N. Bernal, S. Cl´ ery, Y. Mambrini, and Y. Xu, JCAP �� , 065 (2024), arXiv:2311.12694 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Xu, JHEP �� , 174 (2024), arXiv:2407.03256 [hep-ph]

    Y. Xu, JHEP �� , 174 (2024), arXiv:2407.03256 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Xu, PoS ��������� , 047 (2024)

    Y. Xu, PoS ��������� , 047 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Bernal and Y

    N. Bernal and Y. Xu, JHEP �� , 137 (2025), arXiv:2410.21385 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Bernal, Q.-f

    N. Bernal, Q.-f. Wu, X.-J. Xu, and Y. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2503.10756 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Tokareva, Phys

    A. Tokareva, Phys. Lett. B ��� , 138695 (2024), arXiv:2312.16691 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Kanemura and K

    S. Kanemura and K. Kaneta, Phys. Lett. B ��� , 138807 (2024), arXiv:2310.12023 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant, JCAP �� , 024 (2009), arXiv:0909.0622 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Chao, H.-K

    W. Chao, H.-K. Guo, and J. Shu, JCAP �� , 009 (2017), arXiv:1702.02698 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D �� , 103520 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)], arXiv:1704.05871 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Ringwald and C

    A. Ringwald and C. Tamarit, Phys. Rev. D ��� , 063027 (2022), arXiv:2203.00621 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Ghiglieri, M

    J. Ghiglieri, M. Laine, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and E. Speranza, JCAP �� , 062 (2024), arXiv:2401.08766 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Ghiglieri and M

    J. Ghiglieri and M. Laine, JCAP �� , 022 (2015), arXiv:1504.02569 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Garc ´ ıa-Cely and A

    C. Garc ´ ıa-Cely and A. Ringwald, (2024), arXiv:2407.18297 [hep-ph]. 23

    2024 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Ghiglieri, G

    J. Ghiglieri, G. Jackson, M. Laine, and Y. Zhu, Journal of High Energy Physics ���� , 1 (2020)

    2020

  43. [50]

    Ringwald, J

    A. Ringwald, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and C. Tamarit, JCAP �� , 054 (2021), arXiv:2011.04731 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Arvanitaki and A

    A. Arvanitaki and A. A. Geraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. ��� , 071105 (2013), arXiv:1207.5320 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Goryachev and M

    M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. D �� , 102005 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 129901 (2023)], arXiv:1410.2334 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Aggarwal �� ���, Living Rev

    N. Aggarwal �� ���, Living Rev. Rel. �� , 4 (2021), arXiv:2011.12414 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda, and J. Unwin, Journal of High Energy Physics ���� , 1 (2015)

    2015

  48. [55]

    Elahi, C

    F. Elahi, C. Kolda, and J. Unwin, JHEP �� , 048 (2015), arXiv:1410.6157 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Hooper, �������� ��������� ��� ������������(Princeton University Press, 2024)

    D. Hooper, �������� ��������� ��� ������������(Princeton University Press, 2024)

    2024

  50. [57]

    Kolb, ��� ����� ��������(CRC press, 2018)

    E. Kolb, ��� ����� ��������(CRC press, 2018)

    2018

  51. [58]

    Aghanim �� ���, Astron

    N. Aghanim �� ���, Astron. Astrophys ��� , A6 (2020)

    2020

  52. [59]

    Lahav and A

    O. Lahav and A. R. Liddle, arXiv preprint astro-ph/0406681 (2004)

    2004 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Smoot, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements �� , 474 (2000)

    G. Smoot, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements �� , 474 (2000)

    2000

  54. [62]

    Konar and S

    P. Konar and S. Show, (2025), arXiv:2506.08106 [hep-ph]

    2025

  55. [63]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi, �� ���, arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.00786 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia, M. Beker, �� ���, Classical and Quantum Gravity �� , 194002 (2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    S. Hild, M. Abernathy, F. e. Acernese, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia, M. Beker, �� ���, Classical and Quantum gravity �� , 094013 (2011)

    2011

  58. [66]

    Maggiore, C

    M. Maggiore, C. Van Den Broeck, N. Bartolo, E. Belgacem, D. Bertacca, M. A. Bizouard, M. Branchesi, S. Clesse, S. Foffa, J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido,�� ���, Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics ���� , 050 (2020)

    2020

  59. [67]

    Sathyaprakash, M

    B. Sathyaprakash, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P. Ajith, B. Allen, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. An- dersson, S. Aoudia, K. Arun, P. Astone, �� ���, Classical and Quantum Gravity �� , 124013 (2012)

    2012

  60. [68]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, Classical and Quantum Gravity �� , 2435 (2006). 24

    2006

  61. [69]

    G. M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D. A. Shaddock, W. Folkner, and E. S. Phinney, Classical and Quantum Gravity �� , 4887 (2006)

    2006

  62. [70]

    Crowder and N

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cos- mology �� , 083005 (2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Physical Review Letters �� , 221103 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    Kudoh, A

    H. Kudoh, A. Taruya, T. Hiramatsu, and Y. Himemoto, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology �� , 064006 (2006)

    2006

  65. [73]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, Physical Review D ��� , 116011 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Berlin, D

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. T. d’Agnolo, S. A. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and M. Wentzel, Physical Review D ��� , 084058 (2023)

    2023

  67. [75]

    Herman, L

    N. Herman, L. Lehoucq, and A. F˝ uzfa, Physical Review D ��� , 124009 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    T.-H. Yeh, J. Shelton, K. A. Olive, and B. D. Fields, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics ���� , 046 (2022)

    2022

  69. [77]

    Murayama, B

    H. Murayama, B. Noether, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.15772 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Datta and A

    A. Datta and A. Sil, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.01900 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S.-Y. Choi, J. Shim, and H. S. Song, Physical Review D �� , 2751 (1995)

    1995

  72. [80]

    G. Choi, W. Ke, and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D ��� , 083516 (2024), arXiv:2402.04310 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Nakayama and Y

    K. Nakayama and Y. Tang, Phys. Lett. B ��� , 341 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 839, 137787 (2023)], arXiv:1810.04975 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    de Aquino, K

    P. de Aquino, K. Hagiwara, Q. Li, and F. Maltoni, JHEP �� , 132 (2011), arXiv:1101.5499 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  75. [83]

    D. J. Gross and R. Jackiw, Physical Review ��� , 1287 (1968)

    1968

  76. [84]

    Gleisberg, F

    T. Gleisberg, F. Krauss, K. T. Matchev, A. Sch¨ alicke, S. Schumann, and G. Soff, Journal of High Energy Physics ���� , 001 (2003)

    2003

  77. [85]

    Mertig, M

    R. Mertig, M. B¨ ohm, and A. Denner, Computer Physics Communications �� , 345 (1991)

    1991

  78. [86]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Computer Physics Communications ��� , 432 (2016)

    2016

  79. [87]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Computer Physics Communications ��� , 107478 (2020). 25

    2020

  80. [88]

    Shtabovenko, R

    V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig, and F. Orellana, Computer Physics Communications ��� , 109357 (2025)

    2025

  81. [89]

    Edsj¨ o and P

    J. Edsj¨ o and P. Gondolo, Physical Review D �� , 1879 (1997). 26

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.