Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Populating dark sectors with relativistic bubble walls

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that ultra-relativistic bubble walls from first-order phase transitions can pair-produce dark-matter particles far heavier than the transition scale, and that the resulting boosted relics would be warm dark matter today…

desk verdict A clean summary of the author's own bubble-wall DM mechanism, but the heavy warm-DM window rests on an undefended runaway-wall assumption with no backreaction calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05653 v1 pith:HFWQDMQY submitted 2024-12-07 hep-ph

Miguel Vanvlasselaer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d
keywords darkmatterproductionfirst-orderphasetransitionbubblewallwarmsupercooledglueballfreeze-ingravitationalwaves
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the bubble walls of a first-order phase transition, when they accelerate to ultra-relativistic speeds, can turn ordinary thermal plasma particles into pairs of dark-matter particles that are far heavier than the energy scale of the transition itself. Because the emission happens at a moving boundary, the produced particles are highly boosted, so the dark matter can remain warm (with velocities near $10^{-5}$ c at matter-radiation equality) even at masses far above the keV scale, where thermal warm-dark-matter candidates would be forbidden. The author works out the mechanism for a renormalisable scalar portal and for secluded dark sectors coupled through dimension-five and dimension-six operators, and treats glueball dark matter as a distinct case. If the mechanism is right, the observed dark-matter abundance can be reproduced with phase-transition scales around 100 GeV and dark-matter masses up to roughly $10^{9}$ GeV, and the same transitions would emit gravitational waves that upcoming observatories could detect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ultra-relativistic bubble wall, treated as a Lorentz-breaking boundary with a finite width L_w ~ 1/v. In the runaway regime its boost grows with radius as γ_w(R) = 2R/(3R_nuc) (Eq. 3). The production step is a WKB (semiclassical) splitting of a plasma quantum into two heavy states at the wall, with probability given by Eq. (10); the Theta-function there encodes the non-adiabatic condition 2 p0 v > $4M^{2}$, equivalently γ_w > $M^{2}$/(v T_nuc) for thermal quanta. This threshold is what lets the wall produce particles far heavier than the transition scale, and the exponential factor in Eq. (12) is what makes the mechanism fail for slow walls.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to compute the terminal velocity of the bubble wall including the pressure exerted by the emitted dark-matter pairs: a self-consistent boost below γ_w = $M^{2}$/(v T_nuc) would make Eq. (12)'s exponential kill the yield. Observationally, a measurement of the dark-matter free-streaming velocity that rules out V_eq ≈ 9.5×$10^{-6}$ for a benchmark like v=400 GeV, M_psi=8×$10^{8}$ GeV would falsify the warm branch of the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bubble wall acts as a particle accelerator: when its boost γ_w exceeds a non-adiabatic threshold, a thermal quantum hitting the wall can split into two dark-sector states whose mass M is much larger than the wall's characteristic scale v. The production probability for the scalar portal is P_{h→φφ} ≈ (λ v/M)^2/($48π^{2}$) Θ(p0 − $2M^{2}$/v), and the resulting abundance is suppressed by exp(−$M^{2}$/(v T_nuc γ_w)), so production switches on only for γ_w > $M^{2}$/(v T_nuc). When it does switch on, the emitted particles have average energy ~ $M^{2}$/(2T_nuc) and are therefore warm today. The paper extends this to fermions, dark photons, and gluons through effective operators, showing in each case that heavy, warm dark matter can match the observed relic density, and identifies a benchmark with v=400 GeV, M_psi=8×$10^{8}$ GeV, Λ=6.3×$10^{9}$ GeV, and V_eq=9.5×$10^{-6}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the bubble wall actually reaches the ultra-relativistic runaway boost γ_w ≈ 2R/(3R_nuc) used in the calculation; if plasma friction, including the backreaction of the dark-matter particles being produced, slows the wall below γ_w ≈ $M^{2}$/(v T_nuc), the production rate is exponentially suppressed and the mechanism cannot account for the observed dark-matter abundance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark matter produced this way can be much heavier than the Griest-Kamionkowski bound: masses around 10^8-10^9 GeV with transition scales near 100 GeV can give the observed abundance.
  • Because the produced particles are boosted, the dark matter is warm today (V_eq ~ 10^-5) and its free-streaming can be probed by Lyman-alpha, 21-cm, and sub-halo counts.
  • For secluded sectors, the same mechanism works through dimension-five and dimension-six operators, extending the result to fermion, vector, and glueball dark matter, with glueballs always remaining strongly interacting and never free-streaming.
  • The required strong, long, possibly supercooled phase transitions also source gravitational waves, so the mechanism links dark-matter production to observable gravitational-wave signals.
  • The paper systematically compares bubble-wall and freeze-in production and identifies the parameter regions where each yields the observed abundance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The mechanism implicitly predicts a non-thermal momentum distribution, peaked near M^2/(2T_nuc), that differs from both cold WIMP and thermal warm dark matter; this could be searched for in small-scale structure surveys if the free-streaming scale is measured.
  • A natural next step is to include the dark-matter backreaction on the wall; if it is significant, the usable parameter space may shrink, but the qualitative warm-heavy window could survive in strongly supercooled transitions where γ_w is very large.
  • For glueballs, the production computation only sets the initial conditions; the final abundance is controlled by gluon-plasma thermalisation and glueball cannibalism, which ties this mechanism to dark Yang-Mills models and their gravitational-wave signals.
  • The EFT validity bound s_prod < Λ^2 means that the heaviest masses require a UV completion; resonance or strong-coupling effects near that scale could enhance or suppress the yield relative to the EFT estimate.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper, a proceedings contribution, proposes that dark matter can be produced by the collision of ultra-relativistic bubble walls with the thermal plasma during a first-order phase transition. The authors study scalar DM through the renormalizable interaction λφ²h², and fermion, dark-photon, and glueball DM through the effective operators h²ψ̄ψ/Λ, h²F²/Λ², and h²G²/Λ². They present transition probabilities, abundance formulas, and average emitted energies, comparing the bubble-wall yield against freeze-in production. The central qualitative claims are that the produced DM can be much heavier than the phase-transition scale and that it inherits a large boost, so that it can serve as warm dark matter today.

Significance. If the mechanism is realized, it provides a novel way to generate warm dark matter with masses well above the keV scale, evading the Griest-Kamionkowski bound. The parameter space shown in Table 1 and Figs. 5–7 offers concrete observational targets through Lyman-α, 21-cm, and gravitational-wave probes. The paper is careful to impose the non-adiabatic and EFT-validity conditions of Eqs. (12) and (25), and it is transparent in referring to the author's earlier papers [49, 60] for the detailed derivations. The summary table collects the main analytical results in a compact and useful form, and the comparison with freeze-in production adds context for the relative importance of the mechanism.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2 and Eq. (26)] The runaway boost γ_w ≈ 2R/(3R_nuc) of Eq. (3) is the key input for the production formulas (Eqs. 10–13), but the pressure balance in Eq. (5) does not include a contribution P_prod from the DM production reactions themselves, i.e., the same h → DM splittings that create the relic abundance. The manuscript sets P_g → 0 by assuming an ungauged phase-transition sector, but it provides no estimate of P_prod and no argument that it is negligible compared with the driving pressure ΔV. Because the yield in Eq. (12) is exponentially suppressed for γ_w below M²/(v T_nuc), and because the benchmark of Eq. (26) with γ_w = 1.7×10¹⁴ is only a factor of roughly 40 above that threshold (M²/(v T_nuc) ≈ 4×10¹² for the stated parameters), a modest reduction of the wall boost would quench the mechanism. The authors should compute P_prod or state a condition under which the produced particles exert negligible backreaction on the wall; without this, the central claim is not self-contained.
  2. [Section 4, Eqs. (25)–(26)] The benchmark point in Eq. (26) does not satisfy the EFT validity condition of Eq. (25) when the assumptions used in Fig. 5 are adopted (T_nuc ≈ v = 400 GeV). With those values, s_prod ≈ 2γ_w v T_nuc ≈ 2×(1.7×10¹⁴)×(400 GeV)² ≈ 5.4×10¹⁹ GeV², which exceeds Λ² ≈ (6.3×10⁹ GeV)² ≈ 4.0×10¹⁹ GeV². The paper's own criterion thus places this point inside the 'EFT breakdown' region shown in the figure. The authors should either specify the precise value of T_nuc used for the benchmark or choose a point comfortably satisfying 2γ_w v T_nuc < Λ².
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 4 and 7 captions] The captions contain typographical errors: 'various valyus' should be 'various values', and 'amont' should be 'amount'.
  2. [References] References [32] and [33] are identical (both arXiv:2106.15602); they should be merged into a single entry to avoid duplication.
  3. [Section 3, after Eq. (13)] The phrase 'After thermal inflation' is unclear; the intended meaning is presumably 'after inflation', but the role of a possible period of thermal inflation should be stated explicitly if it is part of the assumed cosmology.
  4. [Eq. (16) and surrounding text] The free-streaming length expression in Eq. (16) uses variables V_eq and z_eq, but these are not defined in the text before the equation; a brief definition would improve readability.
  5. [Table 1] In the row for the abundance ΩBE h², the displayed formulas contain factors such as (M/GeV) and (v/GeV); because these are not dimensionless, it would be helpful to state that the relations are to be used with masses expressed in GeV, or to provide the full expressions with explicit factors of T_nuc and the critical density.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: production formulas are quoted from prior peer-reviewed work, and benchmark parameters are transparently fit rather than relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent by construction to an input. The abundance formulas (Eqs. 10-13) are analytic expressions stated in the text, and the benchmark values in Table 1 and Eq. (26) are explicitly obtained by imposing Omega_BE h^2 = Omega_obs h^2 ("assuming that the DM abundance via bubble expansion matches the observation"), so the mass/scale ranges are fits, not disguised predictions. The warmness estimate (Eq. 18) is an independent kinematic relation between the mean energy at production and the present velocity; it is not the same equation as the abundance fit. The large wall boost gamma_w used in the benchmark follows from the runaway formula (Eq. 4) under the explicitly declared assumption that the transition sector is ungauged (P_g -> 0); whether that assumption is realistic and whether the backreaction of produced DM slows the wall are physical consistency questions, not circular reductions. The paper does quote its WKB production probability from the author's prior papers [49,60], but those citations contain actual derivations and are used as sources rather than as the conclusion re-stated as a premise. No self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of model parameters (chosen to fit relic abundance) and physical assumptions (runaway walls, no gauge pressure, free-streaming) rather than on a unique first-principles prediction. The dark sector fields are model inputs, not discoveries.

free parameters (5)
  • wall boost factor γ_w = 1.7×10^14 (benchmark)
    Chosen to satisfy the non-adiabatic condition γ_w > M^2/(v T_nuc) and to produce warm DM with V_eq ~ 10^-5; it is an input, not derived from first principles.
  • DM mass M (M_φ or M_ψ) = 8×10^8 GeV (benchmark for fermion)
    Chosen to match observed relic abundance and the Lyman-alpha warmness bound; scanned over 10^6-10^14 GeV.
  • EFT cutoff Λ = 6.3×10^9 GeV (benchmark)
    Chosen to yield the observed DM abundance; constrained by EFT validity s_prod < Λ^2.
  • portal coupling λ = O(1) in scalar example
    Adjusted to fit the observed relic density in Eqs. (13)-(14).
  • VEV v and supercooling ratio T_nuc/T_reh = v=400 GeV, T_nuc/T_reh ~ 10 in benchmark
    Inputs of the phase transition model selected to produce the desired DM abundance and GW signal.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The phase transition sector is not gauged, so P_g = 0 (no soft gauge boson pressure).
    Section 2, 'In what follows we will assume that the phase transition sector is not gauged such that P_g -> 0'. This is required to allow runaway walls and huge γ_w.
  • domain assumption The WKB approximation and the non-adiabatic transition probability P_{h→φφ} (Eq 10) are valid.
    Eq (10) is quoted from [49]; the central production rate depends on this.
  • domain assumption The DM is free-streaming after production and does not re-thermalize or annihilate for most of the parameter space.
    Footnote 1: 'This assumption is verified in [53, 60]'. The V_eq estimate and warmness claim rely on free-streaming.
  • standard math Standard cosmology with entropy dilution factor (T_nuc/T_reh)^3 after the phase transition.
    Used in Eqs. (13)-(14) for relic abundance.
  • standard math For glueballs, standard SIMP/cannibal relic abundance formulas apply (Eq 23).
    Quoted from [103-105].
invented entities (4)
  • Dark scalar φ
    purpose: Dark matter candidate produced via λ φ² h² portal.
    No direct observational evidence; its presence is posited to explain DM.
  • Dark fermion ψ
    purpose: Stable DM candidate produced via h²ψψ̄/Λ.
    Stability from a conserved quantum number; not observed.
  • Dark photon γ_d
    purpose: Vector DM candidate via h²FμνFμν/Λ², stable via small mixing with SM photon.
    Not observed; mixing assumed small.
  • Dark gluons/glueballs
    purpose: Strongly coupled DM candidate via h²GμνGμν/Λ²; hadronizes into glueballs.
    No observed dark gluons; part of dark Yang-Mills sector.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Populating dark sectors with relativistic bubble walls." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HFWQDMQY

@misc{pith2026241205653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Populating dark sectors with relativistic bubble walls},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HFWQDMQY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05653}
}
read the original abstract

In this talk, we present a mechanism of Dark Matter production during first order phase transitions and happening via the collision of the bubble wall and plasma quanta. We will first study the possibility that the dark matter is produced via a renormalisable operator. We will observe that in this context the DM can be much heavier than the scale of the phase transition and has a large initial velocity, leading to the possibility of the DM to be warm today. We will then turn to more realistic scenarios where the Dark Matter sector is secluded and its interaction with the visible sector (including the Standard Model) originates from dimension-five and dimension-six operators. In this regime, we also find that such DM is typically heavy and warm today. We study separately the cases of weakly and strongly coupled dark sectors, where, in the latter case, we focus on glueball DM, which turns out to have very distinct phenomenological properties. For completeness, we also systematically compute the Freeze-In production of the dark sector and compare it with the bubble-plasma DM abundances. All the analytical results are collected in a table presented in this paper.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the production of Dark Matter from bubbles. In the middle panel, we show how the expansion of bubble walls can produce very boosted scalars 𝜙, fermions 𝜓, vectors 𝛾 or gluons 𝑔. In the right panel, the red rectangle, we present more in details the bubble-plasma production channels. The cross represents the interaction with the bubble wall which allows the DM production. In the left panel,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the processes responsible for the friction at LO (Left) and NLO (Right). The emission of vectors with changing mass is generally the dominant process. Adapted from [81]. where the first factor is the incoming flux of particle species 𝑖 entering into the wall and having a transition 𝑖 → 𝑗 , i.e. to state 𝑗, with an associated loss of momentum Δ𝑝𝑖→𝑗 ≡ 𝑝𝑖 − 𝑝 𝑗 . This loss of momentum of the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Schematic presentation of the different contributions to the GW spectrum from FOPTs. Credit: Giulio Barni. Right: GW signal against the predicted sensitivities of GW observers. Left￾GW signal with 𝑣 = 𝑇reh = 200 GeV for four benchmark points in four different regimes: P1 (runaway 𝛼 = 1, 𝛽 = 100), P2 (runaway 𝛼 = 0.1, 𝛽 = 1000), P3 (terminal velocity 𝛼 = 1, 𝛽 = 100), P4 (terminal velocity 𝛼 = 0.1, 𝛽 = 1000). Se… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Values of 𝑀𝜙 and 𝜆 providing the observed DM relic abundance today if ℎ is a dark higgs, for various values of supercooling 𝑇reh 𝑇nuc = (10, 101.5 , 102 ), 𝑣 = 2000 GeV. The Red lines show the contributions from FO and BE providing the observed DM abundance and that do…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Spectrum of the free-streaming fermion after their emission from the bubble wall. Right: Contour plots of log10 (𝑉eq) for the operator ℎ 2𝜓𝜓¯ Λ and for 𝛽 = 10 and 𝑇nuc ∼ 𝑣, while 𝑇reh = 𝑣. Purple dashed lines indicate the isocontours of the UV cutoff, log10  Λ G…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Same Figure than 5 but for the case of the dark photon production. Adapted from [49] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Parameter space where the production of Glueballs can fit the observed amont of dark matter. We show in black dashed the region where the Glueballs are decaying. Adapted from [49]. 5. Conclusion First order phase transitions (FOPTs), when they are strong and long enoug…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pasechnik, M

    R. Pasechnik, M. Reichert, F. Sannino, and Z.-W. WangJHEP02 (2024) 159, [arXiv:2309.16755]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Azatov and M

    A. Azatov and M. VanvlasselaerJHEP09 (2020) 085, [arXiv:2003.10265]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    M. T. Frandsen, M. Heikinheimo, M. Rosenlyst, M. E. Thing, and K. TuominenJHEP09 (2023) 022, [arXiv:2302.09104]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Reichert and Z.-W

    M. Reichert and Z.-W. WangEPJ Web Conf.274(2022) 08003, [arXiv:2211.08877]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Fujikura, Y

    K. Fujikura, Y. Nakai, R. Sato, and Y. WangJHEP09 (2023) 053, [arXiv:2306.01305]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Delaunay, C

    C. Delaunay, C. Grojean, and J. D. WellsJHEP04 (2008) 029, [arXiv:0711.2511]

    arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Kurup and M

    G. Kurup and M. PerelsteinPhys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 1 015036, [arXiv:1704.03381]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    von Harling and G

    B. von Harling and G. ServantJHEP01(2018) 159, [arXiv:1711.11554]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Azatov, D

    A. Azatov, D. Barducci, and F. SgarlataJCAP07 (2020) 027, [arXiv:1910.01124]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ghosh, H.-K

    T. Ghosh, H.-K. Guo, T. Han, and H. LiuJHEP 07 (2021) 045, [arXiv:2012.09758]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. Aoki, T. Komatsu, and H. ShibuyaPTEP2022 (2022), no. 6 063B05, [arXiv:2106.03439]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Badziak and I

    M. Badziak and I. NaleczJHEP02(2023) 185, [arXiv:2212.09776]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Blasi and A

    S. Blasi and A. MariottiarXiv:2203.16450

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Banerjee, S

    U. Banerjee, S. Chakraborty, S. Prakash, and S. U. RahamanarXiv:2402.02914

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Delle Rose, G

    L. Delle Rose, G. Panico, M. Redi, and A. TesiJHEP04 (2020) 025, [arXiv:1912.06139]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Von Harling, A

    B. Von Harling, A. Pomarol, O. Pujolàs, and F. RompineveJHEP04 (2020) 195, [arXiv:1912.07587]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Halverson, C

    J. Halverson, C. Long, A. Maiti, B. Nelson, and G. SalinasJHEP 05(2021) 154, [arXiv:2012.04071]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Morgante, N

    E. Morgante, N. Ramberg, and P. SchwallerPhys. Rev. D 107(2023), no. 3 036010, [arXiv:2210.11821]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jinno and M

    R. Jinno and M. TakimotoPhys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 1 015020, [arXiv:1604.05035]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Addazi, A

    A. Addazi, A. Marcianò, A. P. Morais, R. Pasechnik, J. a. Viana, and H. YangJCAP09(2023) 026, [arXiv:2304.02399]. [Erratum: JCAP 03, E01 (2024)]. 12 Populating dark sectors with relativistic bubble walls Miguel Vanvlasselaer

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. ShaposhnikovPhys. Lett. B 155(1985) 36

    1985

  14. [22]

    ShaposhnikovJETP Lett

    M. ShaposhnikovJETP Lett. 44(1986) 465–468

    1986

  15. [23]

    A. E. Nelson, D. B. Kaplan, and A. G. CohenNucl. Phys. B 373(1992) 453–478

    1992

  16. [24]

    Carena, M

    M. Carena, M. Quiros, and C. E. M. WagnerPhys. Lett. B 380(1996) 81–91, [hep-ph/9603420]

    1996 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. M. ClinePhil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376(2018), no. 2114 20170116, [arXiv:1704.08911]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. J. Long, A. Tesi, and L.-T. WangJHEP10 (2017) 095, [arXiv:1703.04902]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Bruggisser, B

    S. Bruggisser, B. Von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. ServantJHEP 12 (2018) 099, [arXiv:1804.07314]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bruggisser, B

    S. Bruggisser, B. Von Harling, O. Matsedonskyi, and G. ServantPhys. Rev. Lett.121(2018), no. 13 131801, [arXiv:1803.08546]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-MusolfNew J. Phys. 14 (2012) 125003, [arXiv:1206.2942]

    2012 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. YinJHEP10 (2021) 043, [arXiv:2106.14913]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Huang and K.-P

    P. Huang and K.-P. XieJHEP09(2022) 052, [arXiv:2206.04691]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Baldes, S

    I. Baldes, S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Sevrin, and K. TurbangarXiv:2106.15602

    arXiv

  25. [34]

    E. J. Chun, T. P. Dutka, T. H. Jung, X. Nagels, and M. VanvlasselaerarXiv:2305.10759

    arXiv

  26. [35]

    Kodama, M

    H. Kodama, M. Sasaki, and K. SatoProgress of Theoretical Physics 68 (12, 1982) 1979–1998, [https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/68/6/1979/5311817/68-6-1979.pdf]

    1982

  27. [36]

    Kawana and K.-P

    K. Kawana and K.-P. XiePhys. Lett. B 824(2022) 136791, [arXiv:2106.00111]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    T. H. Jung and T. OkuiarXiv:2110.04271

    arXiv

  29. [38]

    Gouttenoire and T

    Y. Gouttenoire and T. VolanskyarXiv:2305.04942

    arXiv

  30. [39]

    Lewicki, P

    M. Lewicki, P. Toczek, and V. VaskonenarXiv:2305.04924

    arXiv

  31. [40]

    WittenPhys

    E. WittenPhys. Rev.D30(1984) 272–285

    1984

  32. [41]

    C. J. HoganMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 218(1986) 629–636

    1986

  33. [42]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. TurnerPhys. Rev.D47 (1993) 4372–4391, [astro-ph/9211004]

    1993 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. WatkinsPhys. Rev. Lett.69 (1992) 2026–2029

    1992

  35. [44]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. TurnerPhys. Rev.D49 (1994) 2837–2851, [astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  36. [45]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. ServantJCAP1006 (2010) 028, [arXiv:1004.4187]

    2010 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Falkowski and J

    A. Falkowski and J. M. NoJHEP02(2013) 034, [arXiv:1211.5615]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Baldes, Y

    I. Baldes, Y. Gouttenoire, and F. SalaJHEP04 (2021) 278, [arXiv:2007.08440]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [48]

    J.-P. Hong, S. Jung, and K.-P. XiePhys. Rev. D 102 (2020), no. 7 075028, [arXiv:2008.04430]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Azatov, M

    A. Azatov, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. YinJHEP03 (2021) 288, [arXiv:2101.05721]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Baldes, Y

    I. Baldes, Y. Gouttenoire, F. Sala, and G. ServantJHEP 07 (2022) 084, [arXiv:2110.13926]. 13 Populating dark sectors with relativistic bubble walls Miguel Vanvlasselaer

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Asadi, E

    P. Asadi, E. D. Kramer, E. Kuflik, G. W. Ridgway, T. R. Slatyer, and J. SmirnovPhys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 9 095013, [arXiv:2103.09827]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    P. Lu, K. Kawana, and K.-P. XiePhys. Rev. D 105(2022), no. 12 123503, [arXiv:2202.03439]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Baldes, Y

    I. Baldes, Y. Gouttenoire, and F. SalaSciPost Phys.14 (2023) 033, [arXiv:2207.05096]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni, S. Chakraborty, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. YinJHEP10(2022) 017, [arXiv:2207.02230]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Baldes, M

    I. Baldes, M. Dichtl, Y. Gouttenoire, and F. SalaarXiv:2306.15555

    arXiv

  47. [56]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. SwiezewskaJHEP 03(2023) 007, [arXiv:2210.07075]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [57]

    G. F. Giudice, H. M. Lee, A. Pomarol, and B. ShakyaarXiv:2403.03252

    arXiv

  49. [58]

    T. C. Gehrman, B. Shams Es Haghi, K. Sinha, and T. XuJCAP03 (2024) 044, [arXiv:2310.08526]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Azatov and M

    A. Azatov and M. VanvlasselaerJCAP01(2021) 058, [arXiv:2010.02590]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Azatov, X

    A. Azatov, X. Nagels, M. Vanvlasselaer, and W. YinJHEP 11 (2024) 129, [arXiv:2406.12554]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Griest and M

    K. Griest and M. KamionkowskiPhys. Rev. Lett.64 (Feb, 1990) 615–618

    1990

  53. [62]

    Enqvist, J

    K. Enqvist, J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie, and K. RummukainenPhys. Rev. D 45 (May, 1992) 3415–3428

    1992

  54. [63]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, J. M. No, and V. VaskonenJCAP1906(2019), no. 06 024, [arXiv:1903.09642]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [64]

    M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, P. Y. Huet, A. D. Linde, and D. A. LindePhys. Rev.D46(1992) 550–571, [hep-ph/9203203]

    1992 arXiv

  56. [65]

    B.-H. Liu, L. D. McLerran, and N. TurokPhys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 2668–2688

    1992

  57. [66]

    G. D. Moore and T. ProkopecPhys. Rev. Lett.75 (1995) 777–780, [hep-ph/9503296]

    1995 arXiv

  58. [67]

    G. D. Moore and T. ProkopecPhys. Rev.D52 (1995) 7182–7204, [hep-ph/9506475]

    1995 arXiv

  59. [68]

    G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber, and T. KonstandinJCAP1812 (2018), no. 12 034, [arXiv:1809.04907]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. ClinePhys. Rev. D 106(2022), no. 2 023501, [arXiv:2204.13120]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang, and X. WangPhys. Rev. D 107(2023), no. 9 095005, [arXiv:2211.13142]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Konstandin and J

    T. Konstandin and J. M. NoJCAP02(2011) 008, [arXiv:1011.3735]

    2011 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Barroso Mancha, T

    M. Barroso Mancha, T. Prokopec, and B. SwiezewskaJHEP 01 (2021) 070, [arXiv:2005.10875]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Balaji, M

    S. Balaji, M. Spannowsky, and C. TamaritJCAP03 (2021) 051, [arXiv:2010.08013]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Wang and Z.-Y

    S.-J. Wang and Z.-Y. YuwenPhys. Rev. D 107(2023), no. 2 023501, [arXiv:2205.02492]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, and M. ZychPhys. Rev. D 108(2023), no. 10 103523, [arXiv:2303.18216]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J

    M. Sanchez-Garitaonandia and J. van de VisarXiv:2312.09964

    arXiv

  68. [77]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. MooreJCAP0905(2009) 009, [arXiv:0903.4099]

    2009 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. MooreJCAP1705 (2017), no. 05 025, [arXiv:1703.08215]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Gouttenoire, R

    Y. Gouttenoire, R. Jinno, and F. SalaJHEP05 (2022) 004, [arXiv:2112.07686]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [80]

    AiJCAP10(2023) 052, [arXiv:2308.10679]

    W.-Y. AiJCAP10(2023) 052, [arXiv:2308.10679]. 14 Populating dark sectors with relativistic bubble walls Miguel Vanvlasselaer

    2023 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni, R. Petrossian-Byrne, and M. VanvlasselaerarXiv:2310.06972

    arXiv

  73. [82]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht, and C. TamaritJCAP03 (2022), no. 03 015, [arXiv:2109.13710]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [83]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent, and J. van de VisJCAP07 (2023) 002, [arXiv:2303.10171]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [84]

    W.-Y. Ai, X. Nagels, and M. VanvlasselaerJCAP03 (2024) 037, [arXiv:2401.05911]

    2024 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Azatov, G

    A. Azatov, G. Barni, and R. Petrossian-ByrnearXiv:2405.19447

    arXiv

  77. [86]

    Barni, S

    G. Barni, S. Blasi, and M. VanvlasselaerarXiv:2406.01596

    arXiv

  78. [87]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent, and J. van de VisarXiv:2411.13641

    arXiv

  79. [88]

    Caprini et al.JCAP1604(2016), no

    C. Caprini et al.JCAP1604(2016), no. 04 001, [arXiv:1512.06239]

    2016 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Konstandin and G

    T. Konstandin and G. ServantJCAP1112(2011) 009, [arXiv:1104.4791]

    2011 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Baratella, A

    P. Baratella, A. Pomarol, and F. RompineveJHEP03 (2019) 100, [arXiv:1812.06996]

    2019 arXiv

  82. [91]

    C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole, and C. P. L. BerryClass. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015), no. 1 015014, [arXiv:1408.0740]

    2015 arXiv

  83. [92]

    KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGOCollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al.Living Rev. Rel. 21(2018), no. 1 3, [arXiv:1304.0670]

    2018 arXiv

  84. [93]

    Aasi et al.Class

    LIGO ScientificCollaboration, J. Aasi et al.Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 074001, [arXiv:1411.4547]

    2015 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. LiugClass. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019), no. 10 105011, [arXiv:1803.01944]

    2019 arXiv

  86. [95]

    MAGISCollaboration, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, S. Rajendran, and R. W. Romani arXiv:1711.02225

    arXiv

  87. [96]

    K. Yagi, N. Tanahashi, and T. TanakaPhys. Rev.D83 (2011) 084036, [arXiv:1101.4997]

    2011 arXiv

  88. [97]

    K. YagiInt. J. Mod. Phys. D22(2013) 1341013, [arXiv:1302.2388]

    2013 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Sathyaprakash et al.Class

    B. Sathyaprakash et al.Class. Quant. Grav. 29 (2012) 124013, [arXiv:1206.0331]. [Erratum: Class. Quant. Grav.30,079501(2013)]

    2012 arXiv

  90. [99]

    P. Bode, J. P. Ostriker, and N. TurokAstrophys. J.556(2001) 93–107, [astro-ph/0010389]

    2001 arXiv

  91. [100]

    M. Viel, J. Lesgourgues, M. G. Haehnelt, S. Matarrese, and A. RiottoPhys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063534, [astro-ph/0501562]

    2005 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Iršič et al.Phys

    V. Iršič et al.Phys. Rev. D 96(2017), no. 2 023522, [arXiv:1702.01764]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [102]

    Colombi, S

    S. Colombi, S. Dodelson, and L. M. WidrowAstrophys. J.458 (1996) 1, [astro-ph/9505029]

    1996 arXiv

  94. [103]

    E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek, and L. J. HallAstrophys. J.398 (1992) 43–52

    1992

  95. [104]

    Y.Hochberg,E.Kuflik,T.Volansky,andJ.G.Wacker Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014)171301,[ arXiv:1402.5143]

    2014 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Forestell, D

    L. Forestell, D. E. Morrissey, and K. SigurdsonPhys. Rev. D 95 (2017), no. 1 015032, [arXiv:1605.08048]

    2017 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Curtin, C

    D. Curtin, C. Gemmell, and C. B. VerhaarenPhys. Rev. D 106(2022), no. 7 075015, [arXiv:2202.12899]

    2022 arXiv

  98. [107]

    Sitwell, A

    M. Sitwell, A. Mesinger, Y.-Z. Ma, and K. SigurdsonMon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 438(2014), no. 3 2664–2671, [arXiv:1310.0029]

    2014 arXiv

  99. [108]

    J. B. Muñoz, C. Dvorkin, and F.-Y. Cyr-RacinePhys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 6 063526, [arXiv:1911.11144]

    2020 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Drlica-Wagner et al.arXiv:1902.01055

    LSST Dark Matter GroupCollaboration, A. Drlica-Wagner et al.arXiv:1902.01055. 15

    1902 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.