Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Impact of Primordial Magnetic Fields on the First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The paper claims that a pre-existing helical hypermagnetic field slows the first-order electroweak phase transition, forms Higgs vortices above a threshold, and can generate the baryon asymmetry through the chiral anomaly.

desk verdict Genuinely new lattice results on AO vortices and PT slowing, but the baryogenesis claim overreaches: simulated eta_B is orders of magnitude too big and the hand-set bubble seeding makes the quantitative rates conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07416 v1 pith:O7CECILP submitted 2025-08-10 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-lathep-th

Yuefeng Di , Ligong Bian , Rong-Gen Cai This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-lathep-th
keywords electroweakphasetransitionprimordialmagneticfieldshypermagnetichelicitysphaleronratebaryogenesischiralanomalyAmbjørn-Olesencondensationlatticefieldtheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports 3D lattice simulations of the first-order electroweak phase transition in a pre-existing primordial magnetic field. It finds that the magnetic field slows the transition, because it reduces the Higgs vacuum expectation value and slows bubble expansion, and that above a threshold field strength the Higgs field organizes into hexagonal vortex lines. The central claim is that if the field is helical, bubble collisions drive a large growth in the Chern-Simons number, raising the sphaleron rate by several orders of magnitude; through the chiral anomaly, the changing hypermagnetic helicity then becomes baryon and lepton asymmetries. A sympathetic reader would care because this offers a route to the matter-antimatter asymmetry using an ingredient already suspected to exist in the early universe, and it changes the expected bubble dynamics of the electroweak transition.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three linked mechanisms. First, the external hypermagnetic field enters the Higgs potential through the covariant derivative, adding $\frac{g'^4}{4}Y^{\rm ex}_\mu Y^{\mu\,{\rm ex}}\Phi^\dagger\Phi$; this is what slows the transition and, above threshold, drives the Ambjørn-Olesen vortex lattice. Second, the chiral anomaly relation $\partial_\mu j_B^\mu = N_g\left(\frac{g^2}{16\pi^2}\mathrm{Tr}\,W_{\mu\nu}\tilde W^{\mu\nu} - \frac{g'^2}{32\pi^2}Y_{\mu\nu}\tilde Y^{\mu\nu}\right)$ ties baryon number to the Chern-Simons number, whose U(1) part is the hypermagnetic helicity $h_Y = \frac{1}{V}\int d^3x\,(Y+Y_{\rm ex})\cdot(B_Y+B_Y^{\rm ex})$. Third, the lattice evolution trac

What would settle it

Run the same lattice code with bubbles nucleated by the Euclidean tunneling rate derived from the magnetized potential (3), instead of the fixed $p_{\rm bubble}=5\times10^{-8}$ and tanh profile (22), and compare the transition completion time and final $\langle|\Phi|^2\rangle$. If the slowdown and the threshold $g'B_Y^{\rm ex}/m_W^2\gtrsim3.63$ disappear under realistic nucleation, the reported dynamics are an artifact of the seeding scheme; if they survive, the central claims are robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a pre-existing helical hypermagnetic field changes both the dynamics of the first-order electroweak phase transition and its outcome for baryon production. In lattice simulations of the SU(2)$_L\times$U(1)$_Y$ electroweak theory, an external hypermagnetic field lowers the true vacuum through the term $\Delta V\supset \frac{g'^4}{4}Y^{\rm ex}_\mu Y^{\mu\,{\rm ex}}\Phi^\dagger\Phi$, slowing bubble expansion; the weaker the Higgs expectation, the more bubbles nucleate. Above $g'B_Y^{\rm ex}/m_W^2\gtrsim3.63$, the broken phase develops the hexagonal vortex pattern known as Ambjørn-Olesen condensation. When the external field is helical, bubble collisions drive large excursi

Load-bearing premise

All results depend on bubbles being placed by hand at a fixed per-site probability with a fixed wall shape, rather than nucleating from the actual quantum tunneling rate in the magnetized vacuum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The electroweak phase transition in a magnetized region lasts longer and produces more bubbles than in a field-free region, so bubble-dynamics predictions for gravitational waves and baryogenesis should be re-evaluated with magnetic-field-dependent speeds.
  • A helical hypermagnetic field of sufficient strength turns the transition itself into a baryogenesis engine: $\eta_B$ and $\eta_L$ are generated with signs set by the field helicity while $B-L$ stays conserved.
  • The sphaleron-rate enhancement is quantified by explicit fits: for homogeneous helical fields, $\ln(\bar\Gamma/T^4)_s \simeq (0.78|h_{\rm factor}|+0.58)\,B_Y^{\rm ex}/T^2 + \ln(\Gamma_{\rm sym}/T^4)$, and for spectral fields it grows as a power law in the rms field, with larger correlation length giving a larger rate.
  • The vortex phase appears only when the background field has a definite direction; random finite-correlation-length fields suppress the pattern and leave regions where the transition stalls with restored symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because bubble nucleation is imposed by hand rather than derived from tunneling, the quantitative slowdown factors and the vortex threshold are the parts most likely to shift in a fully dynamical treatment; a simulation using bubbles nucleated by the computed Euclidean action of the magnetized potential would settle this.
  • If the enhanced sphaleron rate persists under realistic nucleation, the same mechanism should leave behind a helical magnetic field and a net lepton asymmetry; future searches for cosmic neutrino asymmetries or CMB polarization from helical fields could test this channel.
  • The slower transition implies the gravitational-wave spectrum from a magnetized first-order electroweak transition would peak at a lower frequency and possibly different amplitude than the no-field prediction; a direct calculation of the sound-wave and turbulence contributions would make this testable.
  • The mechanism needs no new CP-violating phases beyond the Standard Model: the helicity sign of the pre-existing field supplies the arrow of time. That could relieve a main pressure on electroweak baryogenesis, but shifts the question to how the helical field itself was created.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents 3D lattice simulations of a first-order electroweak phase transition in the presence of a fixed external hypermagnetic field. The scalar potential contains a cubic term that generates the first-order transition, and vacuum bubbles are seeded by hand with a fixed per-site probability p_bubble and a tanh profile. Three headline results are reported: (1) the external hypermagnetic field slows the phase transition and increases the number of nucleated bubbles; (2) for g'B/m_W^2 ≳ 3.63, vortex-like Higgs/gauge structures interpreted as Ambjørn-Olesen condensation appear; (3) helical hypermagnetic fields enhance the extracted sphaleron rate by many orders of magnitude and, via the chiral anomaly, produce a baryon asymmetry. Quantitative fits for the sphaleron rate are given in Eqs. (29)-(31), and observational constraints on the magnetic field are discussed in Sec. IV E.

Significance. If quantitatively validated, the paper would provide a concrete numerical link between primordial helical hypermagnetic fields, the first-order electroweak transition, and baryogenesis through the chiral anomaly. The manuscript has real strengths: explicit lattice equations of motion and Gauss-law initialization in the appendices, multiple ensembles for several field configurations, and explicit fits for the sphaleron-rate dependence. The anomaly equations used are standard and are not circular; the problem is not that η_B is imposed but that its simulated magnitude is unphysically large. The qualitative trends, especially the PT slowdown and the appearance of vortex structures, may be useful, but the headline baryogenesis claim is currently unsupported because the simulated η_B is about eight orders of magnitude above the observed value and no washout or dilution mechanism is presented. The hand-seeded nucleation prescription further makes the PT dynamics and all derived rates conditional on an unvalidated choice.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV D / Eq. (12)] The baryon asymmetry shown in Fig. 14 reaches η_B ~ 1.7×10^-2 for g'B/m_W^2 = 7.26, while the observed asymmetry is η_B ≈ 6×10^-10. The abstract's third bullet claims that the helical field can 'validate the generation of the baryon asymmetry through the chiral anomaly,' but Eq. (12) is used directly and no washout, dilution, or subsequent evolution that would suppress η_B by roughly seven to eight orders of magnitude is modeled. Reference [97] is cited for the observationally viable range, but its results are not incorporated quantitatively. A quantitative baryogenesis claim requires either a concrete suppression mechanism or a demonstration that parameters exist for which Eq. (12) yields the observed value.
  2. [Sec. III / Eq. (22) and Table I] Bubble nucleation is implemented with a fixed probability p_bubble = 5×10^-8 and a fixed tanh profile, independent of the external hypermagnetic field. The same paper argues in Eq. (4) that the external field modifies the effective Higgs potential and hence the transition dynamics. Physical nucleation in a field-dependent potential would have a rate proportional to exp[-S_3(T,B)/T] that depends on B and on position/time. Since the simulated order-parameter history and ΔN_CS source are generated by this hand-seeded prescription, the PT slowdown, the vortex threshold, and the sphaleron-rate enhancement are all conditional. The authors should show that p_bubble reproduces the physical nucleation rate for the potential of Eq. (3), or at minimum scan p_bubble and demonstrate that the qualitative and quantitative conclusions are robust.
  3. [Sec. IV A and Sec. IV E] Several homogeneous runs use field strengths that exceed the paper's own radiation-energy bound. Equation (33) gives g'B/m_W^2 ≤ 7.07 for T=125 GeV, yet Fig. 3 includes g'B/m_W^2 up to 12.71 and Fig. 4 includes helical runs up to 9.08. The large sphaleron-rate enhancement and the large η_B values partly come from configurations whose magnetic energy density exceeds that of radiation, which are not physically realizable at the electroweak epoch. The claims should be restricted to the allowed range, or the unphysical runs should be clearly separated and excluded from the fits in Eqs. (29)-(31).
  4. [Sec. IV B / Eq. (24)] The paper defines the first critical field for Ambjørn-Olesen condensation as g'B_c1 = m_W^2, i.e., g'B/m_W^2 = 1 in the simulation units, but the observed onset of the vortex structure is quoted as g'B/m_W^2 ≳ 3.63 in the abstract and in Fig. 6. No explanation is given for the discrepancy of roughly a factor of 3.6. Either the theoretical criterion in Eq. (24) is not the one realized in the simulations, or the quoted threshold is mislabeled. This needs to be reconciled because the vortex threshold is one of the three headline quantitative claims.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'homogenesis hypermagentic field' should be 'homogeneous hypermagnetic field'.
  2. [Throughout] The spelling 'Ambjørn-Oleson' is used in the main text, while the standard spelling in the references is 'Ambjørn-Olesen'. Please make it consistent.
  3. [Eq. (4)] The overall factor g'^4 appears dimensionally questionable for a term g'^4 Y_ex^μ Y_exμ |Φ|^2. If this is intended as the covariant-derivative contribution, it should presumably be g'^2/4 times |g' Y_ex|^2 |Φ|^2; please check and clarify the notation.
  4. [Sec. IV C, Eqs. (29)-(31)] The fits are presented without uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures. Given that the N=512 runs have only 4 realizations and the N=128 runs have 20, reporting error bars or at least the scatter would help the reader judge the significance of the fitted exponents 0.28 and 0.30.
  5. [Sec. IV E / Fig. 16] The observational constraints and the radiation-energy bound are discussed, but the reader has to infer which simulation points lie outside the allowed window. A version of Fig. 16 with the simulated parameter points overlaid, or a table stating which runs satisfy g'B/m_W^2 ≤ 7.07, would greatly improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PT speed, vortex threshold, sphaleron rate, and baryon asymmetry are simulation outputs converted with standard anomaly relations; self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results (PT slowdown, vortex condensation threshold, sphaleron-rate enhancement, and baryon asymmetry) are outputs of lattice simulations rather than quantities imposed by construction. Baryon asymmetry is obtained from the simulated Chern-Simons-number difference through the standard anomaly relation, Eqs. (7) and (12), with no parameter fitted to a target baryon number. The sphaleron rate is measured as the ensemble variance of ΔNCS, Eqs. (26)-(28); the fitting formulas (29)-(31) are post-hoc summaries of the simulation data, not fitted inputs that force the claimed outcome. The chiral-anomaly relations (6)-(13) are textbook physics (Adler, Bell-Jackiw, 't Hooft) and are used as conversion formulas. The two self-citations ([19] and [97]) are contextual: [19] is invoked to interpret magnetic-field generation from bubble collisions, but the present simulation explicitly evolves the gauge fields and does not rely on that citation for its central results; [97] maps the hyperMF parameter space to present-day observability and is not the derivation of η_B. The hand-set bubble-nucleation probability p_bubble=5×10^-8 (Table I) is a modeling approximation that may affect the physical realism of the PT dynamics, but it does not make the measured NCS, sphaleron rate, or baryon number equal to an input by construction; it is a correctness or robustness concern, not a circularity. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Nearly every quantitative output sits on parameters chosen by hand (potential, bubble seeding, profile) or fitted to the simulation (Eqs. 29-31). The physics inputs are standard anomaly and electroweak gauge theory, and no new particles are introduced. The baryon asymmetry output is determined by the imposed helical field through the anomaly relation, not by a self-consistent calculation of washout or transfer to radiation.

free parameters (7)
  • Potential cubic coefficient A = 2.59
    Introduced by hand in V(Phi) = -mu^2|Phi|^2 + A|Phi|^3 + lambda|Phi|^4 to make the transition first order; not derived from a UV theory.
  • Potential mass and quartic parameters mu^2, lambda = 0.68, 1.60
    Chosen together with A to fix the zero-field vacuum at v = 1 and the barrier shape; these determine the transition strength.
  • Bubble nucleation probability p_bubble = 5e-8
    Ad hoc probability per lattice site per time step used to seed bubbles; directly controls the PT speed and bubble number, which are central outputs.
  • Bubble radius and wall thickness R0, lw = 13 Delta x, 6 Delta x
    Initial bubble profile parameters chosen by hand in Eq. (22); they set the initial bubble configuration and influence the collision dynamics.
  • Helicity fraction h_factor = -1 to 1 (scanned)
    Controls the initial hypermagnetic helicity in homogeneous runs; the paper scans it but does not derive a preferred value.
  • Sphaleron fit coefficients in Eq. (29) = 0.78 |h_factor| + 0.58
    Slope and intercept fit to the simulated stable sphaleron rate for homogeneous helical MFs; no uncertainty is quoted.
  • Sphaleron fit coefficients in Eqs. (30)-(31) = 2.38/6.86 and exponents 0.28/0.30
    Power-law fits to the spectral-distribution runs for correlation lengths ~R0 and ~R*; they are empirical summaries, not predictions.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Chiral anomaly equations (6)-(13) connect Chern-Simons number and hypermagnetic helicity to baryon and lepton number.
    Standard electroweak anomaly relations used without re-derivation; they define the baryogenesis output.
  • ad hoc to paper The electroweak transition is first order because of the cubic term A|Phi|^3 in the potential (3).
    The potential is a BSM toy model; no UV completion is given and A = 2.59 is chosen by hand.
  • domain assumption The external hypermagnetic field is a fixed, time-independent classical background; cosmic expansion and temperature change are neglected.
    Stated in Sec. III: 'We neglect the expansion of the universe and accompanied temperature variation, and also the evolution of background MFs.'
  • domain assumption Classical lattice fields with thermal initial fluctuations approximate the quantum field dynamics.
    Initial spectrum (16) is a classical thermal spectrum; quantum tunneling is absent except for the hand-seeded bubble prescription.
  • ad hoc to paper Bubble nucleation is modeled by a hand-set probability p_bubble with a tanh profile (22).
    The physical nucleation rate from the potential (3) is not computed; the PT speed result depends on this input.
  • domain assumption The helical homogeneous external field is realized by the vector potential Y_ex = (0,0,xB,h_factor L B) with boundary patching in Appendix C.
    This realizes a constant field on the torus but is not a self-consistent magnetohydrodynamic configuration.
  • standard math The symmetric-phase sphaleron rate Gamma_sym/T^4 = 6.23e-7 from Ref. [95] is used as a baseline.
    Borrowed from the literature as an input; not re-derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of Primordial Magnetic Fields on the First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7CECILP

@misc{pith2026250807416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of Primordial Magnetic Fields on the First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7CECILP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07416}
}
abstract

We numerically study how the primordial magnetic field affects the first-order electroweak phase transition in the early Universe. We observe that: 1) the phase transition process would be slowed down by the magnetic field; 2) the phenomenon of vortex structure of the Higgs condensation appears when the homogenesis hypermagentic field $g'B_Y^{ex}/m_W^2\gtrsim3.63$; and, 3) the helical hypermagnetic field can dramatically enhance the sphaleron rate and validate the generation of the baryon asymmetry through the chiral anomaly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.07416 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. A graphic representation of the conversion from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the change of the Higgs field over time and the number of bubbles under different homogeneous non-helical hyperMF strengths. It can be seen that when the MF strength increases, the PT speed becomes slower 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t/R* 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 < | |2 /v 2 > g 0BY/m2 W = 0.0 g 0BY/m2 W = 1.82 g 0BY/m2 W = 3.63 g 0BY/m2 W = 5.45 g 0BY/m2 W = 7.26 g 0BY/m2 W = 9.08 g 0BY/m2 W = 10.89 g 0BY/m2 W = 12.71 0 … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Left: Evolution of Φ2 over time under different helical homogeneous hyperMF strength with hfactor = 1 (Top) and under the same homogeneous hyperMF strength (g ′B ex Y /m2 W = 5.45) and different hfactor (Bottom). Right: The number of bubbles nucleated under different MF strengths with hfactor = 1 (Top) and under different hfactor with homogeneous hyperMF strength being fixed at g ′B ex Y /m2 W = 5.45 (Bottom). The g… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Evolution of Φ2 over time under different spectrum index n or different hyperMF with spectral distribution. n = 0, 1, 2, 3 corresponds to yellow, green, blue, and red lines, respectively. The solid line indicates σM = 1, the dotted line indicates σM = −1, and the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Φ2(Left) and B2(Right) under different homoge￾neous hyperMFs. The top two plots indicate the case where g ′B ex Y /m2 W = 0, and the middle and bottom two plots are the scenarios with non-helical and helical homogeneous hy￾perMFs (hfactor = 1) with g ′B ex Y /m2 W = 3.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Slice of |Φ| 2 (Top) and hypermagnetic energy (Bottom) at the end of the simulation. The hyperMF has a spectral distribution with correlation length of λBY ∼ R0 and with spectral indices of 0 (Left) and 1 (Middle), and with λBY ∼ R∗, n = 0 (right), respectively. the ho…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The variation of Chern-Simons Number NCS (solid line) and Higgs winding number NH (dashed line) over time under homogeneous external MFs with hfactor = 0 (Top) and hfactor = 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The variation of Chern-Simons Number NCS (solid line) and Higgs winding number NH (dashed line) over time under spectral-distributed external MFs with n = 0 (Top) and n = 1 (Bottom). support the existence of the electroweak strings reported in Refs. [91–94], since we d…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: Changes of (ln Γ( ¯ t)/T 4 ) s∞ over different ho￾mogeneous, helical MFs. The gray line represents the value of the sphaleron rate in the symmetric phase Γsym/T 4 = 6.23 × 10−7 [95]. Bottom: Changes of (ln Γ( ¯ t)/T 4 ) s∞ over different initial helicity with hom…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Changes of (ln Γ( ¯ t)/T 4 ) s R0,R∗ over different hy￾permagnetic energy with σM = ±1 and correlation length of λB ∼ R0 and λB ≳ R∗. The yellow dashed line represents the fitting result of Eq. (30) and Eq. (31) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The variation of ηB (solid line) and η Y B (dashed line) over time under different spectrum distributed hy￾perMF’s σM with the spectral index of n = 0 (Top) and n = 1 (Bottom). E. Remark on the MF Consider MFs with finite correlation lengths and un￾der fully helical c…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Schematic diagram of the range of the cosmic MF. The observations of CMB and blazar, respectively, limit the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Electroweak Baryogenesis: Advances in Sphaleron Rate Calculations and Implications of Thermal Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sphaleron rates can be computed gauge-invariantly in 3D thermal EFT, yielding a new baryon-washout criterion x = lambda3/g3^2 that replaces v_c/T_c > 1 for electroweak baryogenesis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [88]

    Ambjorn and P

    J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B330, 193 (1990)

    work page 1990

  2. [97]

    Baryon asymmetry from electroweak tachyonic preheating

    A. Tranberg and J. Smit, JHEP11, 016 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0310342

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  3. [1]

    transition

    However, to satisfy the Gausan constraint (Eq. (15)), we must assign an initial value to the conjugate momen- tum field of the gauge field according to certain rules. For specific details onInitialization of gauge fields, see Appendix B. When PT occurs, the Higgs field quantum tunnels from the false vacuum|Φ| ≃0 to the true vacuum|Φ|=v, nucleating a bubbl...

  4. [2]

    D. J. Reardon et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [3]

    Antoniadis et al

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

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Agazie et al

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

    arXiv 2023

  7. [5]

    Xu et al., Res

    H. Xu et al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [6]

    L. Bian, S. Ge, J. Shu, B. Wang, X.-Y. Yang, and J. Zong, Phys. Rev. D109, L101301 (2024), arXiv:2307.02376 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 100 references
  1. [7]

    Ghosh, A

    T. Ghosh, A. Ghoshal, H.-K. Guo, F. Hajkarim, S. F. King, K. Sinha, X. Wang, and G. White, JCAP05, 100 (2024), arXiv:2307.02259 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    S. He, L. Li, S. Wang, and S.-J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 210411 (2025), arXiv:2308.07257 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Zheng, F

    H.-w. Zheng, F. Gao, L. Bian, S.-x. Qin, and Y.-x. Liu, Phys. Rev. D111, L021303 (2025), arXiv:2407.03795 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [10]

    M. W. Winkler and K. Freese, Phys. Rev. D111, 083509 (2025), arXiv:2401.13729 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Chen, S.-L

    Z.-C. Chen, S.-L. Li, P. Wu, and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043022 (2024), arXiv:2312.01824 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Bringmann, P

    T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, T. Konstandin, K. Schmidt- Hoberg, and C. Tasillo, JCAP11, 053 (2023), arXiv:2306.09411 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Mazumdar and G

    A. Mazumdar and G. White, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 076901 (2019)

    2019

  8. [14]

    Caprini et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2016, 001–001 (2016)

    C. Caprini et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2016, 001–001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [15]

    Caprini et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2020, 024–024 (2020)

    C. Caprini et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astropar- ticle Physics2020, 024–024 (2020)

    2020

  10. [16]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

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

    2017 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, International Journal of Modern Physics A35, 2050075 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X2050075X

    2020 doi

  12. [18]

    Luo et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    J. Luo et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

  13. [19]

    C. J. Hogan, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1488 (1983)

    1983

  14. [21]

    Enqvist and P

    K. Enqvist and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B319, 178 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9308270

    1993 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Yang and L

    J. Yang and L. Bian, Physical Review D106(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.106.023510

    2022 doi

  16. [23]

    Vachaspati, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Phys. Lett. B265, 258 (1991)

    1991

  17. [24]

    G. Baym, D. Bodeker, and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D53, 662 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9507429

    1996 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Grasso and A

    D. Grasso and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B418, 258 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707265

    1998 arXiv

  19. [26]

    N. K. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B144, 376 (1978)

    1978

  20. [27]

    S. W. MacDowell and O. T¨ ornkvist, Phys. Rev. D45, 3833 (1992)

    1992

  21. [28]

    Salam and J

    A. Salam and J. Strathdee, Nuclear Physics B90, 203 (1975)

    1975

  22. [29]

    Linde, Physics Letters B62, 435 (1976)

    A. Linde, Physics Letters B62, 435 (1976)

    1976

  23. [30]

    Ambjørn, Physics Letters B: Particle Physics, Nu- clear Physics and Cosmology220, 659 (1989)

    J. Ambjørn, Physics Letters B: Particle Physics, Nu- clear Physics and Cosmology220, 659 (1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    Annala and K

    J. Annala and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D107, 073006 (2023), arXiv:2301.08626 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D. L. J. Ho and A. Rajantie, Phys. Rev. D102, 053002 (2020), arXiv:2005.03125 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Comelli, D

    D. Comelli, D. Grasso, M. Pietroni, and A. Riotto, Phys. Lett. B458, 304 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903227

    1999 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Physics Reports348, 163–266 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    L. M. Widrow, Reviews of Modern Physics74, 775–823 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    R. M. Kulsrud and E. G. Zweibel, Reports on Progress in Physics71, 046901 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Kandus, K

    A. Kandus, K. E. Kunze, and C. G. Tsagas, Physics Reports505, 1–58 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    L. M. Widrow, D. Ryu, D. R. G. Schleicher, K. Sub- ramanian, C. G. Tsagas, and R. A. Treumann, Space Science Reviews166, 37–70 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Durrer and A

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov, The Astronomy and Astro- physics Review21(2013), 10.1007/s00159-013-0062-7

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Magnetic fields in the milky way, de- rived from radio continuum observations and faraday rotation studies,

    R. Wielebinski, “Magnetic fields in the milky way, de- rived from radio continuum observations and faraday rotation studies,” in Cosmic Magnetic Fields, edited by R. Wielebinski and R. Beck (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005) pp. 89–112

    2005

  34. [42]

    T. E. Clarke, P. P. Kronberg, and H. B¨ ohringer, The Astrophysical Journal547, L111–L114 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Bonafede et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics513, A30 (2010)

    A. Bonafede et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics513, A30 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Feretti, G

    L. Feretti, G. Giovannini, F. Govoni, and M. Murgia, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review20(2012), 10.1007/s00159-012-0054-z

    2012 doi

  37. [45]

    Dolag, M

    K. Dolag, M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko, and R. Tom` as, The Astrophysical Journal727, L4 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Tavecchio, G

    F. Tavecchio, G. Ghisellini, L. Foschini, G. Bonnoli, G. Ghirlanda, and P. Coppi, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters406, L70–L74 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Tavecchio, G

    F. Tavecchio, G. Ghisellini, G. Bonnoli, and L. Foschini, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society414, 3566–3576 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    I. Vovk, A. M. Taylor, D. Semikoz, and A. Neronov, The Astrophysical Journal747, L14 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    C. D. Dermer, M. Cavadini, S. Razzaque, J. D. Finke, J. Chiang, and B. Lott, The Astrophysical Journal733, L21 (2011)

    2011

  42. [50]

    A. M. Taylor, I. Vovk, and A. Neronov, Astronomy amp; Astrophysics529, A144 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Science328, 73–75 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Hindmarsh, M

    M. Hindmarsh, M. L¨ uben, J. Lumma, and M. Pauly, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes (2021), 10.21468/sci- postphyslectnotes.24

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Caldwell et al., Gen

    R. Caldwell et al., Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 156 (2022), arXiv:2203.07972 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, and L. Wu, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics135, 104094 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    A. D. Sakharov, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5, 32 (1967). 16

    1967

  48. [56]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, New Journal of Physics14, 125003 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Cohen, D

    T. Cohen, D. E. Morrissey, and A. Pierce, Physical Review D86(2012), 10.1103/physrevd.86.013009

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    Giovannini and M

    M. Giovannini and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Physical Re- view Letters80, 22–25 (1998)

    1998

  51. [59]

    Giovannini and M

    M. Giovannini and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2186 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9710234

    1998 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Joyce and M

    M. Joyce and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1193 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9703005

    1997 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Fujita and K

    T. Fujita and K. Kamada, Phys. Rev. D93, 083520 (2016), arXiv:1602.02109 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kamada and A

    K. Kamada and A. J. Long, Phys. Rev. D94, 063501 (2016), arXiv:1606.08891 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kamada and A

    K. Kamada and A. J. Long, Phys. Rev. D94, 123509 (2016), arXiv:1610.03074 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Zhang, F

    Y. Zhang, F. Ferrer, and T. Vachaspati, Physical Re- view D (2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.043014

    2017 doi

  57. [65]

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

    1969

  58. [66]

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

    1969

  59. [67]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 8 (1976)

    1976

  60. [68]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D14, 3432 (1976), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]

    1976

  61. [69]

    G. D. Moore, Physical Review D (2002), 10.1103/phys- revd.59.014503

    2002 doi

  62. [70]

    Turok and J

    N. Turok and J. Zadrozny, Nuclear Physics B358, 471 (1991)

    1991

  63. [71]

    Z.-G. Mou, P. M. Saffin, and A. Tranberg, Journal of High Energy Physics (2018), 10.1007/jhep05(2018)197

    2018 doi

  64. [72]

    M. M. Anber and E. Sabancilar, Phys. Rev. D92, 101501 (2015), arXiv:1507.00744 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D61, 063004 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9905358

    2000 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Giovannini, Phys

    M. Giovannini, Phys. Rev. D61, 063502 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9906241

    2000 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Boyarsky, J

    A. Boyarsky, J. Frohlich, and O. Ruchayskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 031301 (2012), arXiv:1109.3350 [astro- ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Brustein and D

    R. Brustein and D. H. Oaknin, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 2628 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809365

    1999 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Boyarsky, J

    A. Boyarsky, J. Fr¨ ohlich, and O. Ruchayskiy, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 031301 (2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D37, 2743 (1988)

    1988

  71. [79]

    Adshead, J

    P. Adshead, J. T. Giblin, T. R. Scully, and E. I. Sfakianakis, JCAP10, 039 (2016), arXiv:1606.08474 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Martin and J

    J. Martin and J. Yokoyama, JCAP01, 025 (2008), arXiv:0711.4307 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kanno, J

    S. Kanno, J. Soda, and M.-a. Watanabe, JCAP12, 009 (2009), arXiv:0908.3509 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ratra, Astrophys

    B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. Lett.391, L1 (1992)

    1992

  75. [83]

    J. M. Quashnock, A. Loeb, and D. N. Spergel, Astro- phys. J. Lett.344, L49 (1989)

    1989

  76. [85]

    Ambjorn and P

    J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B214, 565 (1988)

    1988

  77. [86]

    Ambjorn and P

    J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Phys. Lett. B218, 67 (1989), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 220, 659 (1989)]

    1989

  78. [87]

    Ambjorn and P

    J. Ambjorn and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B315, 606 (1989)

    1989

  79. [89]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, J. Peisa, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B544, 357 (1999), arXiv:hep-lat/9809004

    1999 arXiv

  80. [90]

    M. N. Chernodub, J. Van Doorsselaere, and H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. D88, 065006 (2013), arXiv:1203.5963 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [91]

    Van Doorsselaere, Phys

    J. Van Doorsselaere, Phys. Rev. D88, 025013 (2013), arXiv:1206.6205 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  82. [92]

    C. J. Copi, F. Ferrer, T. Vachaspati, and A. Ach´ ucarro, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 171302 (2008)

    2008

  83. [93]

    Vachaspati, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 251302 (2001)

    2001

  84. [94]

    Vachaspati and G

    T. Vachaspati and G. B. Field, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 373 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9401220

    1994 arXiv

  85. [95]

    Barriola, Phys

    M. Barriola, Phys. Rev. D51, 300 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9403323

    1995

  86. [96]

    Annala and K

    J. Annala and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D107, 073006 (2023)

    2023

  87. [98]

    Y. Di, L. Bian, and R.-G. Cai, (2024), arXiv:2409.16124 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [99]

    Kahniashvili, A

    T. Kahniashvili, A. Brandenburg, and A. G. Tevzadze, Physica Scripta , 104008 (2016)

    2016

  89. [100]

    Brandenburg, R

    A. Brandenburg, R. Durrer, Y. Huang, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, and S. Mukohyama, Physical Review D (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.023536

    2020 doi

  90. [101]

    Brandenburg, Y

    A. Brandenburg, Y. He, and R. Sharma, Astrophys. J. 922, 192 (2021), arXiv:2107.12333 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  91. [102]

    P. A. R. Ade et al., Astron. Astrophys594, A13 (2016)

    2016

  92. [103]

    G. S. Bali et al., Journal of High Energy Physics (2012), 10.1007/jhep02(2012)044

    2012 doi

Pith tools

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