pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.13597 · v1 · pith:NIO3KPEMnew · submitted 2026-06-11 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.HE

Natural Supercooling and Reheating along Supersymmetric Flat Directions and Observable Gravitational Waves at the Einstein Telescope and the Cosmic Explorer

Jinzheng Li , Pran Nath This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 06:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.HE
keywords supersymmetryhidden sectorphase transitiongravitational wavessupercoolingdark matterportal couplingEinstein Telescope
0
0 comments X

The pith

A supersymmetric hidden sector produces detectable gravitational waves through supercooled phase transitions along flat directions.

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

The paper studies supercooled first-order phase transitions in a supersymmetric hidden sector with a broken U(1) symmetry. It shows that along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so soft supersymmetry breaking generates the barrier radiatively. For gaugino mass to vacuum expectation value ratios of 0.05 to 0.23, the gravitational wave energy density can reach 3 times 10 to the minus 10, which is in the range for the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. The signal strength is set by the portal coupling that determines the temperature ratio between the hidden and visible sectors at percolation. The same model can also generate the correct dark matter density through freeze-out and dilution.

Core claim

Along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier is generated radiatively by soft SUSY-breaking splittings in the DR-bar scheme. In this scheme the gaugino mass sets the barrier depth while the soft scalar mass stabilizes the broken vacuum. For M_lambda tilde over v_X between 0.05 and 0.23 the predicted signal reaches Omega_GW h squared of 3 times 10 to the minus 10 near the percolation boundary, with the amplitude controlled by the hidden-to-visible temperature ratio via the portal coupling delta.

What carries the argument

The D-flat direction where the tree-level quartic vanishes, allowing the barrier to be generated purely by radiative effects from soft supersymmetry breaking.

If this is right

  • The gravitational wave amplitude varies with the portal coupling, reaching 7 times 10 to the minus 11 for delta of 10 to the minus 4 in a cold hidden sector.
  • Reheating is tracked using an 11-variable Boltzmann system that accounts for the energy budget and redshift factors.
  • The hidden sector can match the observed dark matter density with dark quark masses between 30 and 800 keV and negligible effective neutrino species contribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This links supersymmetric particle models directly to gravitational wave observations.
  • The temperature ratio control via portal coupling could be tested by combining GW data with dark matter constraints.
  • The radiative barrier mechanism may extend to other supersymmetric or non-supersymmetric flat direction models.

Load-bearing premise

The tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction so that the barrier is generated purely radiatively by soft SUSY-breaking splittings in the DR-bar scheme.

What would settle it

Non-observation of a gravitational wave signal with Omega_GW h squared around 3 times 10 to the minus 10 in the relevant frequency range at the Einstein Telescope or Cosmic Explorer would falsify the predicted amplitude for those parameter values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.13597 by Jinzheng Li, Pran Nath.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Parameter space and GW spectra for the SUSY flat-direction scenario (λh = 0, vX = 107 GeV, Th = Tv). Left column: m0 = 3.25 Mλ˜, gx = 0.85; right column: m0 = 2.75 Mλ˜, gx = 1.0. (a,b): β/H in the gx–Mλ˜/vX plane; gray: percolation fails; colored stars: five benchmarks shown below. (c,d): GW power spectra for the five benchmarks (solid), with projected sensitivities of LISA, BBO, DECIGO, aLIGO, ET, and CE.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Temperature evolution, false-vacuum fraction, and GW spectrum for the near￾boundary benchmark Mλ˜/vX = 0.23. The columns correspond to δ = 10−6 , 10−5 , 10−4 , while the upper and lower rows show ξ0 = 0.3 and ξ0 = 1, respectively. In the temperature panels, the solid curve is the cold false-vacuum ratio ξf and the dashed curve is the reheated true￾vacuum ratio ξt . The grey dashed curves in the GW panels d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: False-vacuum fraction Pfv as a function of the cold exterior temperature Th,f for the near-boundary benchmark Mλ˜/vX = 0.23 at ξ0 = 1 and δ = 10−6 . The solid curve is the standard calculation without reheating, while the dashed curve is the two-temperature result including latent-heat release. Since Γ ∝ exp[−S3(Th,f )/Th,f ] is controlled by the cold exterior, both treatments percolate at essentially the … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hidden-sector yields Yi = ni/s as functions of the visible temperature for the near-boundary benchmark Mλ˜/vX = 0.23. The columns correspond to δ = 10−6 , 10−5 , 10−4 , and the upper and lower rows show ξ0 = 0.3 and ξ0 = 1, respectively. The gauge-sector states decay inside the bubbles, χ decays before BBN, and the dark quark q freezes out at the phase transition and remains as the dark matter relic. δ ξf,… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study supercooled first-order phase transitions in a supersymmetric hidden sector with a spontaneously broken $U(1)_X$, focusing on the frequency range of the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. Along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier is generated radiatively by soft SUSY-breaking splittings. In the $\overline{\rm DR}$ scheme the gaugino mass $M_{\tilde\lambda}$ sets the barrier depth, while the soft scalar mass $m_0$ stabilizes the broken vacuum. For $M_{\tilde\lambda}/v_X\simeq0.05$--$0.23$, the predicted signal reaches $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\sim3\times10^{-10}$ near the percolation boundary. The observable amplitude depends sensitively on the portal coupling $\delta$ through the hidden-to-visible temperature ratio at percolation: for a cold initial hidden sector the signal rises from the ET floor at $\delta=10^{-6}$ to $\Omega_{\rm GW}h^2\simeq7\times10^{-11}$ as the sectors approach thermal contact at $\delta=10^{-4}$, while a hotter initial hidden sector gives a large signal already for weak portal coupling. We follow this evolution with an 11-variable Boltzmann system that separates the cold nucleating exterior from the reheated true-vacuum interior; reheating mainly enters through the energy budget and redshift factors. The same hidden sector can reproduce $\Omega_{\rm CDM}h^2=0.12$ through relativistic dark-quark freeze-out followed by entropy dilution from hidden-Higgs decay, with $m_q\simeq30$--$800\;$keV and $N_{\rm eff}\lesssim{\rm few}\times10^{-5}$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies supercooled first-order phase transitions along D-flat directions in a supersymmetric hidden U(1)_X sector. It asserts that the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier arises purely from one-loop soft SUSY-breaking splittings in the DR-bar scheme, with M_λ̃ setting the depth and m_0 stabilizing the broken vacuum. For M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 the predicted GW signal reaches Ω_GW h² ∼ 3×10^{-10} near the percolation boundary, with amplitude set by the hidden-to-visible temperature ratio controlled by portal coupling δ; an 11-variable Boltzmann system tracks the evolution and reheating, while the same sector can yield Ω_CDM h² = 0.12 via relativistic dark-quark freeze-out and entropy dilution for m_q ≃ 30–800 keV.

Significance. If the radiative barrier generation, the temperature-ratio control via δ, and the Boltzmann evolution are validated, the work supplies a concrete parameter window linking SUSY flat directions to detectable GW signals at ET and CE together with a viable DM explanation. The explicit dependence on initial hidden-sector temperature and the separation of nucleating exterior from reheated interior are potentially falsifiable features.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation] Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation: the central claim that the tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction (so the barrier is generated purely radiatively by soft splittings in the DR-bar scheme) is load-bearing for the supercooling depth, percolation temperature ratio, and final GW amplitude, yet no explicit tree-level potential, D-flatness conditions, or one-loop effective-potential derivation is supplied.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the headline amplitude Ω_GW h² ∼ 3×10^{-10} for M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 is obtained inside the interval chosen to place the signal near the percolation boundary; the temperature ratio is likewise tuned via δ, and the text supplies neither derivation steps nor error budgets for the 11-variable Boltzmann solver whose output inherits this ratio.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states ranges for M_λ̃/v_X, δ and m_q but does not indicate how these intervals were obtained from the underlying potential or Boltzmann integration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for highlighting the load-bearing aspects of the barrier generation and the numerical implementation. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and self-containedness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation] Abstract, paragraph on barrier generation: the central claim that the tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction (so the barrier is generated purely radiatively by soft splittings in the DR-bar scheme) is load-bearing for the supercooling depth, percolation temperature ratio, and final GW amplitude, yet no explicit tree-level potential, D-flatness conditions, or one-loop effective-potential derivation is supplied.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation strengthens the central claim. Although the vanishing tree-level quartic along the D-flat direction follows from standard SUSY D-term cancellation for the chosen U(1)_X charges, the manuscript would benefit from a self-contained presentation. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that (i) states the D-flatness conditions, (ii) writes the tree-level scalar potential along the flat direction, and (iii) derives the one-loop effective potential in the ¯DR scheme, showing explicitly how the gaugino mass M_λ̃ generates the barrier while m_0 stabilizes the broken vacuum. This addition will not change any numerical results but will make the radiative origin of the barrier fully transparent. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the headline amplitude Ω_GW h^{2} ∼ 3 imes10^{-10} for M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 is obtained inside the interval chosen to place the signal near the percolation boundary; the temperature ratio is likewise tuned via δ, and the text supplies neither derivation steps nor error budgets for the 11-variable Boltzmann solver whose output inherits this ratio.

    Authors: The interval M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 is selected because it simultaneously produces sufficient supercooling for a detectable GW amplitude while still allowing percolation before the hidden sector temperature drops too far; this is quantified in the main text by the nucleation and percolation criteria. The hidden-to-visible temperature ratio is obtained by solving the portal-mediated energy transfer term proportional to δ. The 11-variable Boltzmann system is described in the manuscript, but we acknowledge that explicit step-by-step derivation of the temperature evolution equations and a discussion of numerical convergence are not provided. In the revision we will expand the relevant section with the full set of Boltzmann equations, initial conditions, and a brief convergence/stability analysis. A quantitative error budget for the solver is not currently available and would require additional dedicated numerical work; we will therefore add only a qualitative assessment of the dominant uncertainties (initial temperature ratio, δ range, and redshift factors) while noting that a full Monte-Carlo error propagation lies beyond the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained under stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper states that along the D-flat direction the tree-level quartic vanishes, so the barrier arises radiatively from soft-term splittings in the DR-bar scheme, with M_λ̃ setting the depth. It then reports the resulting GW amplitude Ω_GW h² ∼ 3×10^{-10} for the interval M_λ̃/v_X ≃ 0.05–0.23 and varying δ. These are explicit model inputs and computed outputs, not reductions by construction. No equation equates a fitted quantity to a renamed prediction, no self-citation chain bears the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The 11-variable Boltzmann evolution and temperature-ratio dependence on δ are independent dynamical calculations within the chosen parameter space. The result is therefore a standard parameter scan inside a well-defined SUSY model, not a circular re-statement of its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several soft SUSY parameters and the assumption that the hidden sector starts at a different temperature; these are introduced to produce the desired supercooling and DM abundance rather than derived from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • M_λ̃ / v_X
    Gaugino mass over vev ratio that sets barrier depth; range 0.05-0.23 chosen to reach target GW amplitude.
  • δ
    Portal coupling controlling hidden-visible temperature ratio at percolation; scanned from 10^{-6} to 10^{-4}.
  • m_q
    Dark quark mass 30-800 keV chosen to match Ω_CDM after freeze-out and dilution.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tree-level quartic vanishes along the D-flat direction of the U(1)_X sector.
    Standard property of supersymmetric models with D-flat directions invoked to justify radiative barrier.
  • domain assumption Barrier depth is set by gaugino mass in the DR-bar scheme.
    Scheme choice stated in abstract as determining the radiative potential.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5864 in / 1655 out tokens · 23320 ms · 2026-06-27T06:11:26.412995+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Supercool with PPO: Exploring Supercooled Phase Transitions via Reinforcement Learning

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    PPO reinforcement learning accelerates identification of gravitational wave signals from supercooled phase transitions in a minimal dark U(1)_x sector compared to Monte Carlo sampling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 44 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Agazieet al.[NANOGrav], Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.[NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett.951, no.1, L8 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 2023

  2. [2]

    Antoniadiset al.[EPTA and InPTA:], Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.[EPTA and InPTA:], Astron. Astrophys.678, A50 (2023) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 [arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 2023

  3. [3]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane and J. Askew,et al.Astrophys. J. Lett.951, no.1, L6 (2023) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 [arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02 2023

  4. [4]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. Caballero, J. Yuan and Y. Xu,et al.Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, no.7, 075024 (2023) doi:10.1088/1674- 4527/acdfa5 [arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1674- 2023

  5. [5]

    Antoniadis, Z

    J. Antoniadis, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Babak, M. Bailes, A. S. B. Nielsen, P. T. Baker, C. G. Bassa, B. Becsy, A. Berthereau and M. Bonetti,et al.Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.510, no.4, 4873-4887 (2022) doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3418 [arXiv:2201.03980 [astro-ph.HE]]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3418 2022

  6. [6]

    Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA

    G. Janssen, G. Hobbs, M. McLaughlin, C. Bassa, A. T. Deller, M. Kramer, K. Lee, C. Mingarelli, P. Rosado and S. Sanidas,et al.PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015) doi:10.22323/1.215.0037 [arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.22323/1.215.0037 2015

  7. [7]

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

    A. Afzalet al.[NANOGrav], Astrophys. J. Lett.951, no.1, L11 (2023) [erratum: Astrophys. J. Lett.971, no.1, L27 (2024); erratum: Astrophys. J.971, no.1, L27 (2024)] doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 [arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdc91 2023

  8. [8]

    Antoniadiset al.[EPTA and InPTA], Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.[EPTA and InPTA], Astron. Astrophys.685, A94 (2024) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347433 [arXiv:2306.16227 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347433 2024

  9. [9]

    Gravitational Waves From a Dark (Twin) Phase Transition

    P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.18, 181101 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.181101 [arXiv:1504.07263 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.181101 2015

  10. [10]

    Dark, Cold, and Noisy: Constraining Secluded Hidden Sectors with Gravitational Waves

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch and P. Schwaller, JCAP07, 007 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/07/007 [arXiv:1811.11175 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/07/007 2019

  11. [11]

    Fairbairn, E

    M. Fairbairn, E. Hardy and A. Wickens, JHEP07, 044 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)044 [arXiv:1901.11038 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2019)044 2019

  12. [12]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris and L. Wu, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.135, 104094 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104094 [arXiv:2305.02357 [hep-ph]]. 40

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2023.104094 2024

  13. [13]

    Athron, A

    P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C. T. Lu, L. Morris, L. Wu, Y. Wu and Z. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, no.22, 221001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.221001 [arXiv:2306.17239 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.221001 2024

  14. [15]

    Lewicki, O

    M. Lewicki, O. Pujolàs and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.9, 857 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09669-6 [arXiv:2106.09706 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09669-6 2021

  15. [16]

    Madge, E

    E. Madge, E. Morgante, C. Puchades-Ibáñez, N. Ramberg, W. Ratzinger, S. Schenk and P. Schwaller, JHEP10, 171 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2023)171 [arXiv:2306.14856 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1007/jhep10(2023)171 2023

  16. [18]

    Nakai, M

    Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, F. Takahashi and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B816, 136238 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136238 [arXiv:2009.09754 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136238 2021

  17. [19]

    Ratzinger and P

    W. Ratzinger and P. Schwaller, SciPost Phys.10, no.2, 047 (2021) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.10.2.047 [arXiv:2009.11875 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.10.2.047 2021

  18. [20]

    W. Z. Feng, J. Li, P. Nath and Z. H. Ye, Phys. Rev. D113, no.6, 063504 (2026) doi:10.1103/kvq2-glq5 [arXiv:2510.13770 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/kvq2-glq5 2026

  19. [21]

    Bringmann, T

    T. Bringmann, T. Konstandin, J. Matuszak, K. Schmidt-Hoberg and C. Tasillo, [arXiv:2602.09092 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  20. [22]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D111, no.12, 123007 (2025) doi:10.1103/79cb-rssl [arXiv:2501.14986 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/79cb-rssl 2025

  21. [23]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia and M. Beker,et al.Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002 2010

  22. [24]

    A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 970 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.970

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.970 1982

  23. [25]

    Barbieri, S

    R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B119, 343 (1982) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90685-2

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90685-2 1982

  24. [26]

    L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D27, 2359-2378 (1983) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2359

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.27.2359 1983

  25. [27]

    P. Nath, R. L. Arnowitt and A. H. Chamseddine, WSP, 1984, doi:10.1142/0094

    work page doi:10.1142/0094 1984

  26. [28]

    H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rept.110, 1-162 (1984) doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5 1984

  27. [30]

    S. P. Martin, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18, 1-98 (1998) doi:10.1142/9789812839657_0001 [arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1142/9789812839657_0001 1998

  28. [31]

    Baer and X

    H. Baer and X. Tata, Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 978-0-521-29031-9, 978-0-511-19011-7, 978-0-521-29031-9, 978-0-521-85786-4

    2006

  29. [32]

    Nath, Cambridge University Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-521-19702-1, 978-1-316-98396- 6 doi:10.1017/9781139048118

    P. Nath, Cambridge University Press, 2016, ISBN 978-0-521-19702-1, 978-1-316-98396- 6 doi:10.1017/9781139048118

    doi:10.1017/9781139048118 2016

  30. [33]

    Nath, [arXiv:2603.04664 [hep-ph]]

    P. Nath, [arXiv:2603.04664 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  31. [34]

    Akula and P

    S. Akula and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D87, no.11, 115022 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.115022 [arXiv:1304.5526 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.115022 2013

  32. [35]

    J. Li, P. Nath and R. M. Syed, JHEP07, 222 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)222 [arXiv:2503.19871 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1007/jhep07(2025)222 2025

  33. [38]

    S. Iso, P. D. Serpico and K. Shimada, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, no.14, 141301 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141301 [arXiv:1704.04955 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.141301 2017

  34. [39]

    Randall and G

    L. Randall and G. Servant, JHEP05, 054 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/05/054 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607158 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/05/054 2007

  35. [40]

    Craig, N

    N. Craig, N. Levi, A. Mariotti and D. Redigolo, JHEP21, 184 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)184 [arXiv:2011.13949 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2021)184 2020

  36. [41]

    N. Levi, T. Opferkuch and D. Redigolo, JHEP02, 125 (2023) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2023)125 [arXiv:2212.08085 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2023)125 2023

  37. [42]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B105, 267 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90885-6

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90885-6 1981

  38. [43]

    Salvio, JCAP04, 051 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/051 [arXiv:2302.10212 [hep-ph]]

    A. Salvio, JCAP04, 051 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/051 [arXiv:2302.10212 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/04/051 2023

  39. [44]

    Salvio, JCAP12, 046 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/046 [arXiv:2307.04694 [hep-ph]]

    A. Salvio, JCAP12, 046 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/046 [arXiv:2307.04694 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/046 2023

  40. [45]

    T. P. Dutka, T. H. Jung and C. S. Shin, JHEP05, 182 (2025) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2025)182 [arXiv:2412.15864 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1007/jhep05(2025)182 2025

  41. [46]

    Haba and T

    N. Haba and T. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D101, no.7, 075027 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.075027 [arXiv:1911.01292 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.075027 2020

  42. [47]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D95, no.1, 015020 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.015020 [arXiv:1604.05035 [hep-ph]]. 42

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.015020 2017

  43. [48]

    Marzola, A

    L. Marzola, A. Racioppi and V. Vaskonen, Eur. Phys. J. C77, no.7, 484 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4996-1 [arXiv:1704.01034 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4996-1 2017

  44. [49]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Phys. Rev. D98, no.6, 063532 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063532 [arXiv:1807.00336 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.063532 2018

  45. [50]

    Holdom, Phys

    B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196-198 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)91377-8 1986

  46. [51]

    K. R. Dienes, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B492, 104-118 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00173-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9610479 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(97)00173-9 1997

  47. [52]

    The Stueckelberg $Z'$ Extension with Kinetic Mixing and Milli-Charged Dark Matter From the Hidden Sector

    D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D75, 115001 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.115001 [arXiv:hep-ph/0702123 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.75.115001 2007

  48. [53]

    Kors and P

    B. Kors and P. Nath, JHEP12, 005 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/12/005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0406167 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/12/005 2004

  49. [54]

    Rescigno and A

    F. Rescigno and A. Salvio, JCAP02, 021 (2026) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/021 [arXiv:2507.21215 [hep-ph]]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2026/02/021 2026

  50. [55]

    Matuszak and C

    J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo, [arXiv:2605.15259 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [57]

    Barman, M

    B. Barman, M. Kierkla, M. Lewicki and M. Merchand, [arXiv:2603.11184 [astro- ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  52. [58]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D43, 3191-3203 (1991) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3191

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.43.3191 1991

  53. [59]

    Gondolo and G

    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B360, 145-179 (1991) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(91)90438-4

    work page doi:10.1016/0550- 1991

  54. [60]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D33, 1585 (1986) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D34, 3263 (1986)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.33.1585

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.33.1585 1986

  55. [61]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys.69, 1-547 (1990) Taylor and Francis, 2019, ISBN 978-0-429-49286-0, 978-0-201-62674-2 doi:10.1201/9780429492860

    work page doi:10.1201/9780429492860 1990

  56. [62]

    Wino Cold Dark Matter from Anomaly-Mediated SUSY Breaking

    T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B570, 455-472 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0550- 3213(99)00748-8 [arXiv:hep-ph/9906527 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/s0550- 2000

  57. [63]

    G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D64, 023508 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.64.023508 [arXiv:hep-ph/0005123 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.023508 2001

  58. [64]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. As- trophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro- ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  59. [65]

    B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive, T. H. Yeh and C. Young, JCAP03, 010 (2020) [erratum: JCAP11, E02 (2020)] doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010 [arXiv:1912.01132 [astro- ph.CO]]. 43

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/010 2020

  60. [66]

    R. H. Cyburt, B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T. H. Yeh, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015004 (2016) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.88.015004 [arXiv:1505.01076 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.015004 2016

  61. [67]

    New Light Species and the CMB

    C. Brust, D. E. Kaplan and M. T. Walters, JHEP12, 058 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2013)058 [arXiv:1303.5379 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep12(2013)058 2013

  62. [68]

    Bringmann, T

    T. Bringmann, T. E. Gonzalo, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo, JCAP05, 065 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/065 [arXiv:2311.06346 [astro-ph.CO]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/065 2024

  63. [69]

    Balan, T

    S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak and C. Tasillo, JCAP08, 062 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/062 [arXiv:2502.19478 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/08/062 2025

  64. [70]

    W. Z. Feng, J. Li and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D110, no.1, 015020 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015020 [arXiv:2403.09558 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.015020 2024

  65. [71]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Nath, [arXiv:2602.14324 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  66. [72]

    Aboubrahim and P

    A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, JHEP09, 084 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2022)084 [arXiv:2205.07316 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2022)084 2022

  67. [73]

    Li and P

    J. Li and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D108, no.11, 115008 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.115008 [arXiv:2304.08454 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.115008 2023

  68. [74]

    Nath and J

    P. Nath and J. Li, LHEP2024, 502 (2024) doi:10.31526/lhep.2024.502 [arXiv:2402.04123 [hep-ph]]

    work page doi:10.31526/lhep.2024.502 2024

  69. [75]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D7, 1888-1910 (1973) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.7.1888

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 1910

  70. [76]

    Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9901312 [hep-ph]]

    M. Quiros, [arXiv:hep-ph/9901312 [hep-ph]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  71. [77]

    H. H. Patel and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP07, 029 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2011)029 [arXiv:1101.4665 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/jhep07(2011)029 2011

  72. [78]

    Dolan and R

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9, 3320-3341 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3320

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.9.3320 1974

  73. [79]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D47, 3546 (1993) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 50, 6662 (1994)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3546 [arXiv:hep-ph/9212235 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.47.3546 1993

  74. [80]

    R. R. Parwani, Phys. Rev. D45, 4695 (1992) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D48, 5965 (1993)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.4695 [arXiv:hep-ph/9204216 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.4695 1992

  75. [81]

    M. E. Carrington, Phys. Rev. D45, 2933-2944 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.45.2933

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.2933 1992

  76. [82]

    Thermal Resummation and Phase Transitions

    D. Curtin, P. Meade and H. Ramani, Eur. Phys. J. C78, no.9, 787 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6268-0 [arXiv:1612.00466 [hep-ph]]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6268-0 2018

  77. [83]

    S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929-2936 (1977) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D16, 1248 (1977)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.2929

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.15.2929 1977

  78. [84]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D16, 1762-1768 (1977) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1762 44

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.16.1762 1977

  79. [85]

    S. R. Coleman and F. De Luccia, Phys. Rev. D21, 3305 (1980) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.3305

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.21.3305 1980

  80. [86]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B100, 37-40 (1981) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90281-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(81)90281-1 1981

Showing first 80 references.