Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

A small initial preference for one of two degenerate vacua makes a cosmic domain wall network annihilate at a temperature T_ann ~ T_s B_s^0.8, with a gravitational-wave burst shaped as a single broken power law.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:58 UTC pith:H6N6BRQU

load-bearing objection First 3D study of population-biased domain wall annihilation and its GWs; solid, honest, and useful, but the central scaling law rests on fattened simulations with an unquantified systematic. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18107 v1 pith:H6N6BRQU submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Biased Domain Wall Networks and their Gravitational Waves

Davide Barbini , Alessio Notari , Oriol Pujol\`as , Fabrizio Rompineve , Francisco Torrent\'i This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords domain wallspopulation biasgravitational wavesstochastic gravitational wave backgroundlattice field theoryearly universediscrete symmetry breakingpulsar timing arrays
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Cosmic domain walls—sheet-like relic surfaces from spontaneous breaking of a discrete symmetry—usually overclose the Universe unless something makes them decay. The paper argues that a tiny initial preference for one of the two degenerate vacua is enough: 3+1 dimensional lattice simulations show the network annihilates at a temperature T_ann ≈ T_s B_s^{0.8}, where B_s is the vacuum fraction imbalance at the start of scaling. It further finds that the gravitational waves from the collapse form a single broken power law with a peak at about twice the Hubble scale, so pulsar-timing arrays and ground-based interferometers can search for this scenario with a concrete template. A sympathetic reader would care because the result converts a class of otherwise unwelcome relics into a testable source and sharpens the case for population bias as a viable annihilation mechanism.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a quantitative law for population-biased domain wall annihilation. Using high-resolution 3+1 lattice simulations of a Z2 quartic scalar in a radiation-dominated Universe, the authors find that the false-vacuum fraction decays as F ≈ 1/2 exp[-(η/η_ann)^{p(η)}] with a running exponent p that starts near 1.37, and that the annihilation time is set by Δη_ann/η_s ≈ 0.2 B_s^{-0.8}—equivalently T_ann ≈ T_s B_s^{0.8}. They also report that gravitational wave production from the collapse lasts until η_gw ≈ 2.6 η_ann, and that the resulting spectrum is a single broken power law with peak wavenumber x_p ≈ 2, UV slope β ≈ 1, width δ ≈ 2.8, and efficienc

What carries the argument

The key quantitative object is the population bias B = 1/2 - F, the excess volume fraction of the preferred vacuum. In the quasi-scaling regime B grows as a power law B ∝ η^p with p ≈ 1.37, and the annihilation time follows by extrapolating this growth to the point where false-vacuum regions become isolated; the paper's central identity Δη_ann/η_s ≈ 0.2 B_s^{-0.8} turns that growth into an observable temperature. To reach the small biases where scaling is clean, the authors employ a 'fattening' modification—artificially keeping the comoving wall width constant—which lets simulations run much longer, and they verify the late-time behaviour against physical simulations where both are valid. Th

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on using an unphysical wall-fattening equation to reach the smallest biases; if fattened collapse diverges from the real scalar-field dynamics during the final stages—the paper itself notes growing deviations once walls have mostly disappeared—the fitted -0.8 exponent and the gravitational-wave spectrum derived from it are not the true ones.

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution physical (non-fattened) lattice simulation of a population-biased Z2 network with B_s ≈ 0.01–0.02 until the false-vacuum fraction drops below 0.01 and the GW spectrum saturates; if the extracted Δη_ann/η_s deviates from 0.2 B_s^{-0.8} by more than the combined uncertainties, the central scaling law—and with it the quoted GW templates and ε_gw ≈ 0.06—is not the physical one.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For any particle-physics model with a spontaneously broken discrete symmetry, specifying the population bias at the start of scaling fixes the annihilation temperature, T_ann ≈ T_s B_s^{0.8}; this turns the 'domain wall problem' into a calculable constraint on initial conditions.
  • The gravitational-wave signal from population-biased networks is fully templated (single broken power law, x_p ≈ 2, β ≈ 1, δ ≈ 2.8, ε_gw ≈ 0.06), so searches at pulsar timing arrays and ground-based interferometers can look for this shape directly.
  • Because GW emission continues until η_gw ≈ 2.6 η_ann, the collapse phase—not the preceding scaling regime—determines both the amplitude and the peak frequency of the signal.
  • The two annihilation mechanisms give distinct spectra: potential bias shows a double broken power law with a break at ≈2.5 f_p and about twice the efficiency (ε ≈ 0.12), offering a route to distinguish population bias from explicit symmetry breaking in the data.
  • New high-resolution runs support T_ann ∝ ΔV^{0.5} for potential bias, countering a recent claim of T_ann ∝ ΔV^{1/3}; if the smaller exponent were right, GW amplitudes would be much weaker for small biases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the -0.8 scaling holds down to B_s ~ 10^{-9}, inflation generically produces such biases, and the relation maps an inflationary fluctuation directly onto an annihilation temperature—a one-line bridge from initial conditions to a gravitational-wave signal that the paper does not explicitly construct.
  • Beyond the paper: the measured bias-growth exponent p ≈ 1.37 is close to—but measurably different from—the naive dimensionality count N_dim/2 in 3D and far from the Gaussian-field estimate p=3; this makes p a sharp test of the extrinsic-curvature mechanism, observable in independent lattice implementations or thin-wall approximations.
  • Beyond the paper: the reported deviation between fattened and physical simulations at F ≲ 0.01 means the quoted -0.8 exponent at the smallest biases is effectively a prediction of the modified equation of motion; a direct comparison between fattened and physical runs down to F ≈ 0.003 would settle the primary systematic caveat.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies annihilation of Z2 domain-wall networks by population bias, using 3+1 lattice simulations of a real scalar field with potential V(φ)=λ(φ^2-v^2)^2/4. It introduces the bias B=1/2-F, simulates a quasi-scaling epoch, and fits the false-vacuum fraction to a stretched-exponential template with a running exponent. The central result is Eq. (4.6): Δη_ann/η_s ≃ 0.2 B_s^{-0.8}, i.e. T_ann ~ T_s B_s^{0.8} (Eq. 7.2). For gravitational waves from the collapse, the paper reports a single broken power-law spectrum with peak x_p≈2, IR slope α=3, near-peak slope β≈1, width δ≈2.8, and efficiency ε_gw≈0.06, and compares with the potential-bias mechanism, updating previous results. It also comments on disagreements with Refs. [17,18] and derives observational constraints for PTAs and ground-based interferometers.

Significance. If the empirical scaling law and spectral templates are robust, this is the standard reference for population-bias domain-wall annihilation and its GW signatures. The paper's strengths are high-resolution 3D runs, explicit consistency checks in App. A, a first 3D determination of the bias-growth exponent p, and transparent statements of caveats (e.g. App. B). The advertised numbers, however, rest on PRS-fattened runs for Eq. (4.6) and on one bias value for the GW spectrum; the associated systematic uncertainties are not quantified. The paper is a valuable contribution, but the central claims need a systematics treatment before they can be adopted as reference values.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.6), Fig. 4] The central scaling law Δη_ann/η_s ≃ 0.2 B_s^{-0.8} is fitted to fattened (PRS) simulations only. The manuscript itself reports (App. B) that fattened and physical evolutions deviate in the late collapse, and Fig. 4 (top right) shows physical runs give systematically smaller Δη_ann than fattening runs. The authors interpret this as a resolution limitation of physical runs, but the opposite interpretation — fattening artificially slowing collapse — is equally viable and would produce the same sign and growing trend. Because the exponent −0.8 and the prefactor are extracted only from fattening points, the 'negligible statistical uncertainties' do not include a dominant systematic. Please quantify this systematic: e.g. fit physical runs over the overlap, vary the A/F validity cuts stated in App. B, or calibrate with well-resolved physical runs, and propagate the result into Eqs. (7.2)–(7.4)
  2. [§5, Table 1, Eq. (5.12)] All population-bias GW parameters are obtained from one bias value, B_s=0.081, with physical simulations extended beyond η_res^max≈33 to η_f=50 on the assumption that late scalar-wave sources dominate. The paper supports the extrapolation to arbitrary B_s with the scalar power-spectrum comparison (Fig. 11) and one lower-bias GW run in App. A with worse late-time resolution. Yet Eqs. (7.6)–(7.7) quote ε_gw≈0.06, x_p≈2, β≈1, δ≈2.8 as reference values. This is a second load-bearing extrapolation with unquantified systematic error. Please provide another well-resolved bias point or an explicit quantitative estimate of the bias-dependence/uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4.3) / Eq. (7.1)] The running exponent p(η) used in the conclusions is not explicitly defined; Eq. (4.3) introduces a specific p+α(η−η_s)/Δη_ann form, but Eq. (7.1) writes p(η) without stating the functional dependence. Please make the mapping explicit for reproducibility.
  2. [Table 1 and Eq. (7.7)] The central values quoted in Eq. (7.7) should carry the uncertainties from Table 1 (x_p=1.97±0.13, β=1.04±0.09, δ=2.83±0.79, ε_f=0.045±0.002). The large error on δ is especially relevant for the IR-tail discussion.
  3. [App. B] The sentence saying the fattening breakdown at A≲0.1/F≲0.01 is 'of no relevance' to the main runs should be supported by the actual minimum A and F values reached in each fitted fattening simulation. As written, the reader cannot verify this.
  4. [§3 and §6] The unphysical friction stage is validated in Fig. 12/13 for unbiased and potential-bias networks, but not for population bias. Please state whether the fitted p and Δη_ann are robust to the presence/absence of the friction window, or discuss the expected impact.
  5. [Eq. (2.6)] The agreement between Eq. (4.6) and the expectation η_ann ∝ B_s^{-1/p} is not an independent confirmation, since p is itself a fit output from the same data. I suggest rephrasing this as a consistency check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central scaling law is a direct fit to new simulations; self-citations are methodological, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's main claim, Δη_ann/η_s ≃ 0.2 B_s^{-0.8} (Eq. 4.6), is obtained as an explicit power-law fit to the annihilation times extracted from new lattice simulations via the template (4.3). The parameters p, α and Δη_ann are fit to the false-vacuum fraction data; the scaling law is not imposed by construction and is not a renamed input. Eq. (2.6) is presented only as an expectation from the power-law growth B ∼ η^p, and the paper later checks consistency: 'We notice that (4.6) agrees with this relation to within ∼10%. We consider this as satisfactory.' That is a consistency check, not a constraint fed back into the fit. The GW spectrum parameters (x_p ≃ 2, β ≃ 1, δ ≃ 2.8, ε_gw ≃ 0.06) are also fits to spectra from physical simulations, not derived from the fitted scaling law. The paper explicitly flags a limitation in App. B: 'in the late stages of collapse, the equivalence between the physical and fattened simulations breaks down... we estimate A ∼ 0.1 and F ∼ 0.01.' This is an extrapolation/correctness caveat, not circularity; the fits used for the central law stop at F(H), before reaching the quoted breakdown regime. Self-citations to [15,16] are used for numerical strategy, for the empirical template, and for comparison with the potential-bias case, but the population-bias annihilation law is supported by new simulations and does not reduce to those citations. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against simulation data, and the only identified concerns are systematic-validity risks rather than circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central results are empirical laws obtained by fitting lattice simulations. They depend on the fattening and friction numerical procedures, on the scaling-regime assumption, and on finite-volume cuts. The fitted parameters p, alpha, C_ann, q_ann, spectral shape parameters, and efficiency are outputs of the simulations that are subsequently used as inputs for cosmological forecasts. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • p (FV fraction exponent) = 1.37 ± 0.01
    Fitted to F(eta) using template (4.3); central to the FV decay law (7.1).
  • alpha (running exponent term) = 0.30 ± 0.04
    Empirical running term in Eq. (4.3); reported in Eq. (4.5).
  • C_ann (prefactor in Delta_eta_ann relation) = 0.2
    Prefactor in Delta_eta_ann/eta_s ~ 0.2 B_s^{-0.8}, Eq. (4.6).
  • q_ann (bias exponent in Delta_eta_ann relation) = -0.8
    Power-law index fitted in Eq. (4.6); maps to T_ann ~ T_s B_s^{0.8}.
  • potential-bias p = 2.16 ± 0.06
    Fitted to potential-bias FV fraction, Eq. (4.7); differs from earlier [15] p~3.
  • GW spectral beta (population bias) = 1.04 ± 0.09
    Single broken power-law UV slope, Table 1 and Eq. (7.7).
  • GW spectral delta (population bias) = 2.83 ± 0.79
    Peak width parameter in single broken power law, Table 1.
  • GW peak position x_p = 1.97 ± 0.13
    Peak of GW spectrum in units of k/(2 pi a H), Table 1; used in Eq. (7.6).
  • GW efficiency epsilon_gw = 0.06 ± 0.02 (population), 0.12 ± 0.03 (potential)
    Derived from simulations via Eqs. (5.12)-(5.13); used for amplitude forecasts.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The biased network achieves a quasi-scaling regime with approximately one wall per Hubble patch before collapse.
    Used throughout Sec. 4; only approximately true for the smallest biases, and the two largest biases are discarded for the FV fits.
  • domain assumption The fattened PRS equation of motion (3.7)-(3.8) reproduces the physical thin-wall dynamics of domain walls after formation.
    This is the load-bearing assumption for the small-bias results; App. B documents that deviations grow at late times but does not quantify the effect on Delta_eta_ann.
  • ad hoc to paper The unphysical friction stage active for eta in (6.5,8) accelerates the approach to scaling without distorting the subsequent annihilation epoch.
    Introduced in Sec. 3; used to justify discarding early-time data and to set eta_s=9.
  • domain assumption Initial conditions are a homogeneous displacement plus white-noise Gaussian fluctuations, and the evolution depends only on the ratio b_i = <phi>_i / sqrt(<delta phi^2>).
    Eqs. (3.2)-(3.4); tested in App. A for one combination but not for all physics conclusions.
  • domain assumption FV fractions below one Hubble volume, F < F^(H), are excluded from fits; the real universe may retain super-Hubble FV regions that alter the late-time decay.
    Eq. (4.4) and surrounding text; acknowledged as a finite-volume limitation.
  • domain assumption A radiation-dominated Friedmann background with a(eta) proportional to eta is used throughout.
    Stated at the start of Sec. 3; enables temperature-time conversion in Sec. 7.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 39791 in / 15661 out tokens · 151012 ms · 2026-08-01T15:58:23.912026+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmic Domain Wall networks are among the most interesting sources of a stochastic Gravitational Wave (GW) background from the early Universe. We present a thorough analysis of their annihilation, with a focus on scenarios where the collapse is induced by a population bias, whereby one of two degenerate vacua is initially preferred over the other. Our state-of-the-art $3+1$ lattice field theory simulations in the expanding Universe reveal that the network decays around the temperature $T_\text{ann}\sim T_s\,\mathcal{B}_s^{0.8}$, where $\mathcal{B}_s$ quantifies the preference for one vacuum over the other at the onset of the scaling regime at the temperature $T_s$. Furthermore, we obtain the spectrum of GWs from such networks, and provide a detailed comparison with the alternative potential bias annihilation mechanism that relies on a small explicit symmetry breaking in the potential. En passant, we update results on the evolution of these networks and on their GWs, and clarify existing disagreements in the recent literature. Our results sharpen the phenomenological viability of spontaneously broken discrete symmetries, and provide GW spectra that Pulsar Timing Arrays (PTAs) and ground-based interferometers (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA) can readily use in their searches for a cosmological GW background.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Outcomes of Grand Unified Symmetry Breaking

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Numerical SU(3) simulations find biased domain walls both absorb and produce magnetic monopoles, so wall collapse can leave residual monopoles and may source GWs or magnetically charged black holes.

  2. Domain walls through different cosmologies

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 accept novelty 6.5

    Domain-wall network area scales as S ≈ 2ξV/τ with ξ≈1.2 across cosmologies from dust to near-Minkowski, so the particle horizon—not H⁻¹—sets the correlation length and GW peak.

  3. Fixing IR tail of gravitational waves from domain walls

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Per-mode time averaging after source shutdown removes nonphysical IR wiggles in simulated GW spectra from domain walls; PRS scaling yields incorrect spectra even with rescaled sources.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [3]

    Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,

    D. J. Reardonet al., “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,”Astrophys. J. Lett.951no. 1, (2023) L6,arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [4]

    Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with – 36 – the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,

    H. Xuet al., “Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with – 36 – the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,”Res. Astron. Astrophys.23no. 7, (2023) 075024,arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [5]

    The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the 4.5-yr data release and the noise and stochastic signals of the millisecond pulsar population,

    M. T. Mileset al., “The MeerKAT Pulsar Timing Array: the 4.5-yr data release and the noise and stochastic signals of the millisecond pulsar population,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.536 no. 2, (2024) 1467–1488,arXiv:2412.01148 [astro-ph.HE]. [6]NANOGravCollaboration, A. Afzalet al., “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,”Astrophys...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [8]

    Cosmological Consequences of the Spontaneous Breakdown of Discrete Symmetry,

    Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, “Cosmological Consequences of the Spontaneous Breakdown of Discrete Symmetry,”Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67(1974) 3–11

    1974

  5. [9]

    Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,”J. Phys. A9(1976) 1387–1398

    1976

  6. [10]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects. Cambridge University Press, 7, 2000

    2000

  7. [11]

    Gravitational Field of Vacuum Domain Walls and Strings,

    A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational Field of Vacuum Domain Walls and Strings,”Phys. Rev. D23 (1981) 852–857

    1981

  8. [12]

    Axion cosmology with long-lived domain walls,

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, “Axion cosmology with long-lived domain walls,”JCAP01(2013) 001,arXiv:1207.3166 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [13]

    On the estimation of gravitational wave spectrum from cosmic domain walls,

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, “On the estimation of gravitational wave spectrum from cosmic domain walls,”JCAP02(2014) 031,arXiv:1309.5001 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [14]

    Gravitational waves from domain wall collapse, and application to nanohertz signals with QCD-coupled axions,

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, K. Murai, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, “Gravitational waves from domain wall collapse, and application to nanohertz signals with QCD-coupled axions,”Phys. Lett. B 851(2024) 138586,arXiv:2306.17146 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [15]

    Collapsing domain wall networks: impact on pulsar timing arrays and primordial black holes,

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolàs, and F. Rompineve, “Collapsing domain wall networks: impact on pulsar timing arrays and primordial black holes,”JCAP06(2024) 020, arXiv:2401.14331 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [16]

    The spectrum of gravitational waves from annihilating domain walls,

    A. Notari, F. Rompineve, and F. Torrenti, “The spectrum of gravitational waves from annihilating domain walls,”JCAP07(2025) 049,arXiv:2504.03636 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [17]

    Near-Peak Spectrum of Gravitational Waves from Collapsing Domain Walls,

    B. Cyr, S. Cotterill, and R. Battye, “Near-Peak Spectrum of Gravitational Waves from Collapsing Domain Walls,”arXiv:2504.02076 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [18]

    Biased domain walls: faster annihilation, weaker gravitational waves,

    E. Babichev, I. Dankovsky, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov, and A. Vikman, “Biased domain walls: faster annihilation, weaker gravitational waves,”arXiv:2504.07902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  15. [19]

    Domain walls in the scaling regime: Equal Time Correlator and gravitational waves,

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, and M. Vanvlasselaer, “Domain walls in the scaling regime: Equal Time Correlator and gravitational waves,”JCAP06(2026) 053,arXiv:2511.16649 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  16. [20]

    Gravitational waves from domain walls in Pulsar Timing Array datasets,

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, “Gravitational waves from domain walls in Pulsar Timing Array datasets,”JCAP02(2023) 001,arXiv:2204.04228 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [21]

    Axionic domain walls at Pulsar Timing Arrays: QCD bias and particle friction,

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, and A. Sevrin, “Axionic domain walls at Pulsar Timing Arrays: QCD bias and particle friction,”JHEP11(2023) 169,arXiv:2306.17830 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [22]

    Domain wall interpretation of the PTA signal confronting black hole overproduction,

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, “Domain wall interpretation of the PTA signal confronting black hole overproduction,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 6, (2024) L061306,arXiv:2306.17841 [gr-qc]. – 37 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [23]

    Implications for cosmic domain walls from the first three observing runs of LIGO-Virgo,

    Y. Jiang and Q.-G. Huang, “Implications for cosmic domain walls from the first three observing runs of LIGO-Virgo,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 10, (2022) 103036,arXiv:2208.00697 [astro-ph.CO]. [24]LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRACollaboration, A. G. Abacet al., “Cosmological and High Energy Physics implications from gravitational-wave background searches in LIGO-Virg...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [25]

    Of Axions, Domain Walls and the Early Universe,

    P. Sikivie, “Of Axions, Domain Walls and the Early Universe,”Phys. Rev. Lett.48(1982) 1156–1159

    1982

  21. [26]

    The art of simulating the early Universe – Part I,

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valkenburg, “The art of simulating the early Universe – Part I,”JCAP04(2021) 035,arXiv:2006.15122 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [27]

    The art of simulating the early Universe. Part II,

    J. Baeza-Ballesteros, D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, J. Lizarraga, N. Loayza, K. Marschall, T. Opferkuch, B. A. Stefanek, F. Torrentí, and A. Urio, “The art of simulating the early Universe. Part II,”arXiv:2512.15627 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  23. [28]

    From cusps to swallowtails: Domain wall singularities in 2+1 dimensions,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Jiménez-Aguilar, and O. Pujolàs, “From cusps to swallowtails: Domain wall singularities in 2+1 dimensions,”Phys. Rev. D112no. 12, (2025) 123536, arXiv:2509.19457 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [29]

    Cuspidal Singularities in Collapsing Domain Walls,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, M. Elley, F. Ferrer, A. García Martín-Caro, D. Jiménez-Aguilar, O. Pujolàs, and J. S. Valbuena-Bermúdez, “Cuspidal Singularities in Collapsing Domain Walls,”arXiv:2605.22974 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [30]

    Naturally Weak CP Violation,

    A. E. Nelson, “Naturally Weak CP Violation,”Phys. Lett. B136(1984) 387–391

    1984

  26. [31]

    Solving the Strong CP Problem Without the Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,

    S. M. Barr, “Solving the Strong CP Problem Without the Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,”Phys. Rev. Lett.53(1984) 329

    1984

  27. [32]

    Is CP a gauge symmetry?,

    K.-w. Choi, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, “Is CP a gauge symmetry?,”Nucl. Phys. B391 (1993) 515–530,arXiv:hep-ph/9205202

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  28. [33]

    Chiral Nelson-Barr models: Quality and cosmology,

    P. Asadi, S. Homiller, Q. Lu, and M. Reece, “Chiral Nelson-Barr models: Quality and cosmology,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 11, (2023) 115012,arXiv:2212.03882 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [34]

    Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1791–1797

    1977

  30. [35]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,”Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 223–226

    1978

  31. [36]

    Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,

    F. Wilczek, “Problem of StrongPandTInvariance in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.40(1978) 279–282

    1978

  32. [37]

    Primordial Black Holes from the QCD axion,

    F. Ferrer, E. Masso, G. Panico, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, “Primordial Black Holes from the QCD axion,”Phys. Rev. Lett.122no. 10, (2019) 101301,arXiv:1807.01707 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [38]

    Domain wall formation in the postinflationary universe,

    Z. Lalak and S. Thomas, “Domain wall formation in the postinflationary universe,”Phys. Lett. B306(1993) 10–18,arXiv:hep-ph/9303250

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  34. [39]

    Biased domain walls,

    D. Coulson, Z. Lalak, and B. A. Ovrut, “Biased domain walls,”Phys. Rev. D53(1996) 4237–4246

    1996

  35. [40]

    Evading the cosmological domain wall problem,

    S. E. Larsson, S. Sarkar, and P. L. White, “Evading the cosmological domain wall problem,” Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 5129–5135,arXiv:hep-ph/9608319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  36. [41]

    Analytic scaling solutions for cosmic domain walls,

    M. Hindmarsh, “Analytic scaling solutions for cosmic domain walls,”Phys. Rev. Lett.77 (1996) 4495–4498,arXiv:hep-ph/9605332

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  37. [42]

    Effects of Biases in Domain Wall Network Evolution,

    J. R. C. C. C. Correia, I. S. C. R. Leite, and C. J. A. P. Martins, “Effects of Biases in Domain Wall Network Evolution,”Phys. Rev. D90no. 2, (2014) 023521,arXiv:1407.3905 [hep-ph]. – 38 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [43]

    Effects of biases in domain wall network evolution. II. Quantitative analysis,

    J. R. C. C. C. Correia, I. S. C. R. Leite, and C. J. A. P. Martins, “Effects of biases in domain wall network evolution. II. Quantitative analysis,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 8, (2018) 083521, arXiv:1804.10761 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [44]

    Stability of domain walls in models with asymmetric potentials,

    T. Krajewski, J. H. Kwapisz, Z. Lalak, and M. Lewicki, “Stability of domain walls in models with asymmetric potentials,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 12, (2021) 123522,arXiv:2103.03225 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [45]

    Stability of domain wall network with initial inflationary fluctuations and its implications for cosmic birefringence,

    D. Gonzalez, N. Kitajima, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, “Stability of domain wall network with initial inflationary fluctuations and its implications for cosmic birefringence,”Phys. Lett. B 843(2023) 137990,arXiv:2211.06849 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [46]

    Stability of domain walls with inflationary fluctuations under potential bias, and gravitational wave signatures,

    N. Kitajima, J. Lee, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, “Stability of domain walls with inflationary fluctuations under potential bias, and gravitational wave signatures,”arXiv:2311.14590 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [47]

    Percolation on a continuum and the localization-delocalization transition in amorphous semiconductors,

    R. Zallen and H. Scher, “Percolation on a continuum and the localization-delocalization transition in amorphous semiconductors,”Phys. Rev. B4(Dec, 1971) 4471–4479. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.4.4471

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.4.4471 1971

  43. [48]

    The Large scale structure of the universe: Turbulence, intermittency, structures in a selfgravitating medium,

    S. F. Schandarin and Y. B. Zeldovich, “The Large scale structure of the universe: Turbulence, intermittency, structures in a selfgravitating medium,”Rev. Mod. Phys.61(1989) 185–220

    1989

  44. [49]

    Dynamical Evolution of Domain Walls in an Expanding Universe,

    W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden, and D. N. Spergel, “Dynamical Evolution of Domain Walls in an Expanding Universe,”Astrophys. J.347(1989) 590–604

    1989

  45. [50]

    No cosmological domain wall problem for weakly coupled fields,

    H. Casini and S. Sarkar, “No cosmological domain wall problem for weakly coupled fields,” Phys. Rev. D65(2002) 025002,arXiv:hep-ph/0106272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  46. [51]

    Gravitational Waves from Axion Monodromy,

    A. Hebecker, J. Jaeckel, F. Rompineve, and L. T. Witkowski, “Gravitational Waves from Axion Monodromy,”JCAP11(2016) 003,arXiv:1606.07812 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  47. [52]

    Minkowski functionals used in the morphological analysis of cosmic microwave background anisotropy maps,

    J. Schmalzing and K. M. Gorski, “Minkowski functionals used in the morphological analysis of cosmic microwave background anisotropy maps,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.297(1998) 355, arXiv:astro-ph/9710185

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  48. [53]

    Topology and Geometry of Gaussian random fields I: on Betti Numbers, Euler characteristic and Minkowski functionals,

    P. Pranav, R. van de Weygaert, G. Vegter, B. J. T. Jones, R. J. Adler, J. Feldbrugge, C. Park, T. Buchert, and M. Kerber, “Topology and Geometry of Gaussian random fields I: on Betti Numbers, Euler characteristic and Minkowski functionals,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485 no. 3, (2019) 4167–4208,arXiv:1812.07310 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [54]

    Statistics of Smoothed Cosmic Fields in Perturbation Theory. 1. Formulation and Useful Formulae in Second Order Perturbation Theory,

    T. Matsubara, “Statistics of Smoothed Cosmic Fields in Perturbation Theory. 1. Formulation and Useful Formulae in Second Order Perturbation Theory,”Astrophys. J.584(2003) 1–33

    2003

  50. [55]

    One-scale model for domain wall network evolution,

    P. P. Avelino, C. J. A. P. Martins, and J. C. R. E. Oliveira, “One-scale model for domain wall network evolution,”Phys. Rev. D72(2005) 083506,arXiv:hep-ph/0507272

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  51. [56]

    Extending the velocity-dependent one-scale model for domain walls,

    C. J. A. P. Martins, I. Y. Rybak, A. Avgoustidis, and E. P. S. Shellard, “Extending the velocity-dependent one-scale model for domain walls,”Phys. Rev. D93no. 4, (2016) 043534, arXiv:1602.01322 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [57]

    CosmoLattice: A modern code for lattice simulations of scalar and gauge field dynamics in an expanding universe,

    D. G. Figueroa, A. Florio, F. Torrenti, and W. Valkenburg, “CosmoLattice: A modern code for lattice simulations of scalar and gauge field dynamics in an expanding universe,”Comput. Phys. Commun.283(2023) 108586,arXiv:2102.01031 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [58]

    Evolution of domain wall networks: The Press-Ryden-Spergel algorithm,

    L. Sousa and P. P. Avelino, “Evolution of domain wall networks: The Press-Ryden-Spergel algorithm,”Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 087305,arXiv:1101.3350 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  54. [59]

    The Cosmological evolution of domain wall networks,

    J. C. R. E. Oliveira, C. J. A. P. Martins, and P. P. Avelino, “The Cosmological evolution of domain wall networks,”Phys. Rev. D71(2005) 083509,arXiv:hep-ph/0410356

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  55. [60]

    High Quality QCD Axion at – 39 – Gravitational Wave Observatories,

    R. Zambujal Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolàs, and F. Rompineve, “High Quality QCD Axion at – 39 – Gravitational Wave Observatories,”Phys. Rev. Lett.128no. 14, (2022) 141101, arXiv:2107.07542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [61]

    Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,

    C. Capriniet al., “Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,”JCAP03(2020) 024,arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [62]

    General Properties of the Gravitational Wave Spectrum from Phase Transitions,

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin, and G. Servant, “General Properties of the Gravitational Wave Spectrum from Phase Transitions,”Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 083519, arXiv:0901.1661 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  58. [63]

    Primordial gravitational wave backgrounds from phase transitions with next generation ground based detectors,

    C. Caprini, O. Pujolàs, H. Quelquejay-Leclere, F. Rompineve, and D. A. Steer, “Primordial gravitational wave backgrounds from phase transitions with next generation ground based detectors,”Class. Quant. Grav.42no. 4, (2025) 045015,arXiv:2406.02359 [astro-ph.CO]. [64]LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRACollaboration, A. G. Abacet al., “Upper Limits on the Isotrop...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [65]

    New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,

    K. Schmitz, “New Sensitivity Curves for Gravitational-Wave Signals from Cosmological Phase Transitions,”JHEP01(2021) 097,arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [66]

    Primordial black holes and wormholes from domain wall networks,

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, “Primordial black holes and wormholes from domain wall networks,”Phys. Rev. D109no. 12, (2024) 123507,arXiv:2311.07670 [hep-ph]. – 40 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024