Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

The Domain Wall Soliton's Tension

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper computes the one-loop tension of the phi-4 domain wall in 3+1 dimensions, obtaining rho = m^3/(3 lambda) + 0.0410959 m^3.

desk verdict First explicit one-loop 3+1d phi^4 domain-wall tension via LSPT; internally consistent and honest about limitations, but the number awaits an independent spectral check. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20814 v1 pith:V73GU3DW submitted 2024-12-30 hep-th

Jarah Evslin , Hui Liu , Baiyang Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords domainwallsolitonone-loopcorrectionphi-4double-wellmodeltensionlinearizedperturbationtheoryrenormalizationsqueezedcoherentstateultravioletdivergence
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 calculates the one-loop correction to the tension of the classical domain wall in the $\phi^4$ double-well model in 3+1 dimensions. It claims the one-loop tension is $\rho \sim m^3/(3\lambda) + 0.0410959\,m^3 + O(m^3\lambda)$, the first finite explicit value for this quantity. The calculation uses linearized soliton perturbation theory (LSPT), in which the wall is represented by a squeezed coherent state, and requires both mass and coupling-constant renormalization because ultraviolet divergences survive normal ordering. The same method reproduces the known one-loop tensions in 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions, so a reader should care because this is a test of the method in the first dimension where the divergence structure is nontrivial, with consequences for quantum soliton phenomenology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop mass formula of Ref. [24], written in Eq. (3.6) for a domain wall, together with the squeezed-coherent-state construction of LSPT. LSPT builds the soliton state by squeezing the vacuum and then displacing it by the classical domain wall solution; the formula expresses the one-loop tension $\rho_1$ as a sum over the wall's normal modes (zero mode B, shape mode S, and continuum modes labeled by $k_x$) of an integral over transverse momentum modes treated as plane waves. The paper evaluates these integrals analytically in the transverse directions, leaving one-dimensional integrals over $p_x$, and combines $\rho_1$ with the counterterm contribution $\rho_0$ coming from mass and coupling renormalization, whose logarithmic divergences cancel those of the continuum modes.

What would settle it

Compute the same one-loop tension by an independent spectral method, such as phase-shift or heat-kernel sums over the wall's fluctuation spectrum, using the same renormalization conditions; it should reproduce 0.$0410959m^{3}$. A different finite coefficient would indicate that the squeezed-state ansatz or the plane-wave transverse-mode factorization misses a one-loop contribution, and a lattice Monte Carlo measurement of the 3+1d $\phi^4$ wall tension at weak coupling could settle the number without assuming a soliton quantization scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is Eq. (3.19): in 3+1 dimensions the one-loop domain wall tension is $\rho \sim m^3/(3\lambda) + 0.0410959\,m^3$ plus corrections of order $m^3\lambda$. The finite correction is scheme-dependent, and the authors fix their scheme by requiring the three-point effective potential to equal its tree-level value at zero external momenta and by on-shell mass renormalization. The correction is positive under this scheme, and the divergent parts of the counterterm contribution and the one-loop continuum contribution cancel exactly. The same LSPT machinery reproduces the earlier 1+1d and 2+1d results of the literature.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the squeezed coherent state built in the authors' earlier papers is the correct one-loop domain wall state, and that transverse momentum modes factorize as plane waves; if that state misses one-loop physics, the coefficient 0.$0410959m^{3}$ would not be the physical tension.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-loop tension of the $\phi^4$ domain wall in 3+1 dimensions is finite and, in the authors' renormalization scheme, positive: $\rho \sim m^3/(3\lambda) + 0.0410959\,m^3$.
  • LSPT can be extended beyond one loop and to form factors, amplitudes, and decay rates for 3+1-dimensional domain walls, going where spectral methods cannot easily reach.
  • The known 1+1 and 2+1 results are recovered as limiting cases, which the authors take as a consistency check of the method.
  • Phenomenological estimates that use domain wall tension, such as gravitational-wave signals from collapsing wall networks, can now include a definite one-loop correction in 3+1 dimensions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the result is correct, an independent spectral-method calculation with the same renormalization scheme should reproduce $0.0410959m^3$ exactly, providing a sharp cross-check that the squeezed-state ansatz and plane-wave factorization capture the full one-loop sector.
  • The sign and size of the finite correction depend on the renormalization scheme, so a scheme-independent statement would require combining this tension with some other observable, such as a domain-wall excitation energy or decay rate.
  • Because a quadratic divergence enters at two loops in 3+1 dimensions, extending LSPT here will need a Lorentz-invariant regulator; a natural test is whether dimensional regularization can be made to act consistently on the soliton background itself.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the one-loop correction to the tension of the domain wall in the 3+1-dimensional phi^4 double-well model using linearized soliton perturbation theory (LSPT). The authors first fix the counterterms by requiring the three-point function at zero external momenta to equal its tree-level value and by imposing on-shell mass renormalization (Section 2). They then combine the resulting counterterm contribution rho_0 with the one-loop squeezed-state contribution rho_1 obtained from the Cahill-Comtet-Glauber mass formula (3.6). The final result is rho ~ m^3/(3 lambda) + 0.0410959 m^3 + O(m^3 lambda), Eq. (3.19). In 1+1 and 2+1 dimensions the same framework reproduces the known Dashen-Hasslacher-Neveu and Jaimungal-Semenoff-Zarembo results, and the arithmetic of the 3+1 component sum is internally consistent.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is the first explicit finite one-loop tension for the 3+1-dimensional phi^4 domain wall, obtained by a method (LSPT) that the authors have argued is extendable to higher loops, form factors, amplitudes, and decay rates. The paper has clear strengths: the 1+1d and 2+1d benchmarks are reproduced exactly, the component arithmetic leading to Eq. (3.19) checks, and the ultraviolet divergence cancellation between C(p_x) and the continuum one-loop integral is demonstrated graphically. The main risks are that the continuum integral (3.16), which carries the new finite coefficient, is not fully derived or evaluated transparently, and that the entire 3+1d calculation relies on the authors' own squeezed-state construction. An independent spectral-method computation of the same quantity would substantially raise confidence in the claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.16)] The displayed expression for rho_hat_1(k_x,p_x) does not follow transparently from the normal modes in Eq. (3.7). The product g-tilde_{-k_x}(p_x) g-tilde_{k_x}(-p_x) contains a term proportional to delta(p_x-k_x)^2 and cross terms proportional to delta(p_x-k_x) csch(pi(p_x-k_x)/m), none of which appear in Eq. (3.16). If these distributional contributions vanish after integration -- for example because the radial integral vanishes sufficiently rapidly at p_x=k_x -- the vanishing should be shown explicitly. In addition, the csch argument in Eq. (3.16) is written as pi(p_x+k_x)/m, whereas Eq. (3.7) gives csch(pi(p_x-k_x)/m) csch(pi(k_x-p_x)/m) for the smooth part. This discrepancy must be resolved before the numerical value of rho_c can be accepted.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.17)] The numerical result rho_c = 0.0251892 m^3 is asserted after a one-line "Integrating" with no indication of how the double integral over p_x and k_x was evaluated, how the logarithmic divergence was regulated, or how the cancellation with C(p_x) in Eq. (3.15) was implemented. Because rho_c enters the headline coefficient 0.0410959 m^3 in Eq. (3.19), the manuscript should provide a reproducible evaluation: an analytic reduction, numerical quadrature details, a table showing cutoff independence, or the code and data used. As written, the reader cannot verify the central new number.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.6) and Refs. [29,30,32]] The one-loop correction is taken from the Cahill-Comtet-Glauber mass formula (3.6) and from the squeezed coherent state constructed in the authors' previous papers. No derivation of Eq. (3.6) is included here, and the 3+1-dimensional state is not independently checked. The paper itself states that the result is "in principle, implicit in the existing literature" and calls for a spectral-method comparison. This is a load-bearing correctness risk: if the squeezed-state ansatz is not the correct one-loop domain wall sector, the divergence cancellation and the final coefficient would not be the physical tension. I recommend that the authors either include a succinct derivation of the formula they use, state more explicitly which assumptions of Refs. [29,30,32] enter, or provide a direct comparison with the spectral methods of Refs. [9,10,11].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 1] The name "Jaimunga" in the abstract should be "Jaimungal" to match Ref. [31] and its author.
  2. [Eq. (2.5)] The expression "Gamma_1 = -6gi" is confusing; it should read "-6ig" or the imaginary unit should be placed consistently, as in Eq. (2.10).
  3. [Eq. (2.9)] The notation "0 = Gamma_3 = Gamma_3a + Gamma_3b + Gamma_3c" is awkward; it should be written as "Gamma_3 = Gamma_3a + Gamma_3b + Gamma_3c = 0 under the renormalization condition."
  4. [Fig. 4] The figure would benefit from a legend identifying the red, black, and blue curves, and the axis label rho(p_x) should indicate the m^3 units used.
  5. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4] There are several typographical slips, including "one noteable exception" (should be "notable") and "In all we find" (should be "Altogether we find"). Please proofread the text carefully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3+1d one-loop tension coefficient is a genuine evaluation under an explicit renormalization scheme, with the method anchored by independent lower-dimensional results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the prohibited sense. The final coefficient 0.0410959 m^3 in Eq. (3.19) is assembled from separately computed pieces: the counterterm contribution rho0 in Eq. (3.5), the zero-mode and shape-mode contributions rho1B and rho1S in Eqs. (3.12)-(3.13), and the continuum contribution rho_c in Eq. (3.17). None of these quantities is fitted to the final tension; each is obtained by evaluating integrals with the stated normal modes and renormalization conditions. The renormalization condition (2.8), fixing the three-point effective potential to its tree-level value at zero momenta, is a convention rather than a hidden input, and the paper explicitly notes that the sign and size of the O(lambda^0) correction depend on this choice. The main self-referential element is the LSPT squeezed-state framework and Eq. (3.6), imported from the authors' prior work [29,30,32] via Ref. [24]. However, this is not circular: the formula is checked against the independent Dashen-Hasslacher-Neveu result in 1+1d and the Jaimungal-Semenoff-Zarembo result in 2+1d, so the self-citation is backed by externally validated benchmarks rather than being the sole support for the method. The asserted numerical evaluation of Eq. (3.16) and the possible distributional subtleties in the mode products are correctness risks, not circularity: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data; the free parameters m and λ are standard renormalized couplings. The derivation relies on standard perturbation theory, the domain assumption of UV universality between vacuum and soliton sectors, and the authors' LSPT state construction. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Feynman diagram perturbation theory and normal ordering are valid for computing effective actions in the soliton sector.
    Invoked throughout Section 2 for the three-point and two-point functions and the effective potential.
  • domain assumption The phi^4 double-well model in 3+1 dimensions is renormalizable at one loop with mass and coupling counterterms only.
    Section 2.3 states phi^4 is the only renormalizable bounded-below model in 3+1d, and only mass and coupling renormalization are needed at one loop.
  • domain assumption UV divergences in the soliton sector are identical to those in the vacuum sector, allowing vacuum renormalization to remove soliton divergences.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 citing Faddeev-Korepin; this justifies transferring counterterms from the vacuum sector to the soliton sector.
  • ad hoc to paper The squeezed coherent state constructed in prior papers [29,32] is the correct one-loop domain wall state, and the Cahill-Comtet-Glauber mass formula (3.6) applies in 3+1 dimensions.
    This is the central methodological premise of Section 3.2; it comes from the authors' own LSPT program and is not independently derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Domain Wall Soliton's Tension." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V73GU3DW

@misc{pith2026241220814,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Domain Wall Soliton's Tension},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V73GU3DW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20814}
}
abstract

We calculate the one-loop tension of the domain wall soliton in the $\phi^4$ double-well model. Our result agrees with previous results from Dashen, Hasslacher and Neveu (1974) in 1+1d and Jaimunga, Semenoff and Zarembo (1999) in 2+1d. After an additional 25 year interval, we have obtained a one-loop tension correction of $0.0410959m^3$ in 3+1d. In this case, unlike lower-dimensional cases, even after normal ordering there are ultraviolet divergences that require both mass and also coupling constant renormalization. We renormalized the coupling so that the three-point interaction in the effective potential is given by its tree level value at zero external momenta.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20814 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. These three amputated diagrams each yield a divergent contribution to the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This diagram provides a finite contribution to the three point function. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This diagram provides a divergent contribution to the propagator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The contribution to the tension from continuum modes arising at each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nonperturbative Methods and Extended Hadron Models in Field Theory 2. Two-Dimensional Models and Extended Hadrons,

    R. F. Dashen, B. Hasslacher and A. Neveu, “Nonperturbative Methods and Extended Hadron Models in Field Theory 2. Two-Dimensional Models and Extended Hadrons,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 4130. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.4130

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.4130 1974

  2. [2]

    Extended Particles in Quantum Field Theories,

    J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita, “Extended Particles in Quantum Field Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975), 2943 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.11.2943

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.11.2943 1975

  3. [3]

    Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,

    N. H. Christ and T. D. Lee, “Quantum Expansion of Soliton Solutions,” Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975), 1606 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.1606

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.12.1606 1975

  4. [4]

    Canonical Quantization of Nonlinear Waves,

    E. Tomboulis, “Canonical Quantization of Nonlinear Waves,” Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975), 1678 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.1678

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.12.1678 1975

  5. [5]

    Quantum Theory of Solitons: Preliminary Version,

    L. D. Faddeev and V. E. Korepin, “Quantum Theory of Solitons: Preliminary Version,” Phys. Rept. 42 (1978), 1-87 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90058-3

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(78)90058-3 1978

  6. [6]

    Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions. II. The Z2 -broken phase and the Chang duality,

    S. Rychkov and L. G. Vitale, “Hamiltonian truncation study of the ϕ4 theory in two dimensions. II. The Z2 -broken phase and the Chang duality,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.6, 065014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.065014 [arXiv:1512.00493 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Monopole Mass in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,

    R. K. Kaul, “Monopole Mass in Supersymmetric Gauge Theories,” Phys. Lett. B 143 (1984), 427-431 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91495-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)91495-3 1984

  8. [8]

    Supersymmetric Solitons and How They Help Us Understand Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,

    M. Shifman and A. Yung, “Supersymmetric Solitons and How They Help Us Understand Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79 (2007), 1139 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.79.1139 [arXiv:hep-th/0703267 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Vacuum energy in smooth background fields,

    M. Bordag, “Vacuum energy in smooth background fields,” J. Phys. A 28 (1995), 755- 766 doi:10.1088/0305-4470/28/3/028 16

    1995 doi

  2. [10]

    One loop quantum energy densities of domain wall field configurations,

    A. Parnachev and L. G. Yaffe, “One loop quantum energy densities of domain wall field configurations,” Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000), 105034 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.105034 [arXiv:hep-th/0005269 [hep-th]]

    2000 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quantum energies of interfaces,

    N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, M. Quandt and H. Weigel, “Quantum energies of interfaces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001), 131601 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.131601 [arXiv:hep- th/0103010 [hep-th]]

    2001

  4. [12]

    Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, “Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings,” Nucl. Phys. B 61 (1973), 45-61 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(73)90350-7

    1973 doi

  5. [13]

    One-loop mass shift formula for kinks and self-dual vortices,

    A. A. Izquierdo, W. Garcia Fuertes, M. de la Torre Mayado and J. Mateos Guilarte, “One-loop mass shift formula for kinks and self-dual vortices,” J. Phys. A 39 (2006), 6463-6472 doi:10.1088/0305-4470/39/21/S42 [arXiv:hep-th/0510234 [hep-th]]

    2006 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Lectures on the mass of topological solitons,

    A. Alonso Izquierdo, W. Garcia Fuertes, M. A. Gonzalez Leon, M. de la Torre Mayado, J. Mateos Guilarte and J. M. Munoz Castaneda, “Lectures on the mass of topological solitons,” [arXiv:hep-th/0611180 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    One-loop corrections to the string tension of the vortex in the Abelian Higgs model,

    J. Baacke and N. Kevlishvili, “One-loop corrections to the string tension of the vortex in the Abelian Higgs model,” Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 085008 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010), 129905] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78.085008 [arXiv:0806.4349 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    QUANTUM CORRECTION TO MONOPOLE MASS,

    V. G. Kiselev and K. G. Selivanov, “QUANTUM CORRECTION TO MONOPOLE MASS,” Phys. Lett. B 213 (1988), 165-167 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)91018-0

    1988 doi

  9. [17]

    Monopole determinant in Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature,

    K. Zarembo, “Monopole determinant in Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature,” Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996), 73-98 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(96)00028-4 [arXiv:hep-th/9510031 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and con- finement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and con- finement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B426 (1994) 19 Erra- tum: [Nucl. Phys. B 430 (1994) 485] doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90124-4, 10.1016/0550- 3213(94)00449-8 [hep-...

    1994 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Topology of the Gauge Condition and New Confinement Phases in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981) 455. doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(81)90442-9

    1981 doi

  12. [20]

    Vortices and Quark Confinement in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,

    S. Mandelstam, “Vortices and Quark Confinement in Nonabelian Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rept. 23 (1976) 245. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(76)90043-0 17

    1976 doi

  13. [21]

    Vacuum Polarization Energy of a Proca Soliton,

    D. A. Petersen and H. Weigel, “Vacuum Polarization Energy of a Proca Soliton,” [arXiv:2411.18373 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Manifestly Finite Derivation of the Quantum Kink Mass,

    J. Evslin, “Manifestly Finite Derivation of the Quantum Kink Mass,” JHEP 11 (2019), 161 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2019)161 [arXiv:1908.06710 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Two-Loop Scalar Kinks,

    J. Evslin and H. Guo, “Two-Loop Scalar Kinks,” Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no.12, 125011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.125011 [arXiv:2012.04912 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Mass Formulas for Static Solitons,

    K. E. Cahill, A. Comtet and R. J. Glauber, “Mass Formulas for Static Solitons,” Phys. Lett. B 64 (1976), 283-285 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(76)90202-1

    1976 doi

  17. [25]

    Effective mass and correlation length of nucleon constituents,

    P. Vinciarelli, “Effective mass and correlation length of nucleon constituents,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. 4S2 (1972), 905-909 doi:10.1007/BF02756261

    1972 doi

  18. [26]

    Effective Action for Composite Opera- tors,

    J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, “Effective Action for Composite Opera- tors,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), 2428-2445 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2428

    1974 doi

  19. [27]

    Solitons as Infinite Constituent Bound States,

    J. G. Taylor, “Solitons as Infinite Constituent Bound States,” Annals Phys. 115 (1978), 153 doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90179-3

    1978 doi

  20. [28]

    Classical Lumps and their Quantum Descendents,

    S. R. Coleman, “Classical Lumps and their Quantum Descendents,” Subnucl. Ser. 13 (1977), 297 PRINT-77-0088 (HAR V ARD)

    1977

  21. [29]

    A Finite Tension for the ϕ4 4 Domain Wall,

    J. Evslin, H. Liu, B. Zhang and H. Guo, “A Finite Tension for the ϕ4 4 Domain Wall,” [arXiv:2411.05406 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    A (2+1)-dimensional domain wall at one-loop,

    K. Ogundipe, J. Evslin, B. Zhang and H. Guo, “A (2+1)-dimensional domain wall at one-loop,” JHEP 05 (2024), 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)098 [arXiv:2403.14062 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Universality in effective strings,

    S. Jaimungal, G. W. Semenoff and K. Zarembo, “Universality in effective strings,” JETP Lett. 69 (1999), 509-515 doi:10.1134/1.568059

    1999 doi

  24. [32]

    Constructing A Finite Tension Domain Wall in ϕ4 4,

    J. Evslin, H. Guo, H. Liu and B. Zhang, “Constructing A Finite Tension Domain Wall in ϕ4 4,” [arXiv:2411.10099 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Leading quantum correction to the Φ4 kink form factor,

    H. Guo, “Leading quantum correction to the Φ4 kink form factor,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.9, 096001 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.096001 [arXiv:2209.03650 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Meson production from kink-meson scattering,

    J. Evslin, H. Liu and B. Zhang, “Meson production from kink-meson scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.2, 025012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.025012 [arXiv:2211.01794 [hep-th]]. 18

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Elastic Kink-Meson scattering,

    J. Evslin and H. Liu, “Elastic Kink-Meson scattering,” JHEP 04 (2024), 072 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)072 [arXiv:2311.14369 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    (Anti-)Stokes Scattering on the Domain Wall String,

    H. Guo, H. Liu and J. Evslin, “(Anti-)Stokes Scattering on the Domain Wall String,” [arXiv:2412.13409 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Spontaneous emission from excited quantum kinks,

    J. Evslin and A. Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, “Spontaneous emission from excited quantum kinks,” JHEP 12 (2022), 111 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2022)111 [arXiv:2210.13791 [hep- th]]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The dynam- ics of domain wall strings,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar, J. M. Queiruga and J. Urrestilla, “The dynam- ics of domain wall strings,” JCAP 05 (2023), 011 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/05/011 [arXiv:2209.12945 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Spinor walls in five-dimensional warped spacetime,

    Z. Q. Cui and Y. X. Liu, “Spinor walls in five-dimensional warped spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.4, 275 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11422-0 [arXiv:2210.01498 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Topological zero modes and bounded modes at smooth domain walls: Exact solutions and dualities,

    P. Marra and A. Nigro, “Topological zero modes and bounded modes at smooth domain walls: Exact solutions and dualities,” doi:10.1093/ptep/ptae186 [arXiv:2408.16466 [hep- th]]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gravitational waves from domain walls in Pulsar Timing Array datasets,

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas and F. Rompineve, “Gravitational waves from domain walls in Pulsar Timing Array datasets,” JCAP02 (2023), 001 doi:10.1088/1475- 7516/2023/02/001 [arXiv:2204.04228 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Revisiting evolution of domain walls and their gravitational radiation with CosmoLattice,

    I. Dankovsky, E. Babichev, D. Gorbunov, S. Ramazanov and A. Vikman, “Revisiting evolution of domain walls and their gravitational radiation with CosmoLattice,” JCAP 09 (2024), 047 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/047 [arXiv:2406.17053 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,

    G. Agazie et al. [NANOGrav], “The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023) no.1, L8 doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 [arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals,

    J. Antoniadis et al. [EPTA and InPTA:], “The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals,” Astron. Astrophys. 678 (2023), A50 doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346844 [arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    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. “Search for an Isotropic Gravitational- wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,” Astrophys. J. Lett.951 (2023) no.1, L6 doi:10.3847/20...

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

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

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. N. Caballero, J. Yuan and Y. Xu, et al.“Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I,” Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23 (2023) no.7, 075024 doi:1...

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Scalar-induced gravitational wave from domain wall perturbation,

    B. Q. Lu, “Scalar-induced gravitational wave from domain wall perturbation,” [arXiv:2412.07677 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    The origins of massive black holes,

    M. Volonteri, M. Habouzit and M. Colpi, “The origins of massive black holes,” Nature Rev. Phys. 3 (2021) no.11, 732-743 doi:10.1038/s42254-021-00364-9 [arXiv:2110.10175 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

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

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, “Domain wall interpretation of the PTA signal confronting black hole overproduction,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.6, L061306 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.L061306 [arXiv:2306.17841 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Primordial black holes and worm- holes from domain wall networks,

    Y. Gouttenoire and E. Vitagliano, “Primordial black holes and worm- holes from domain wall networks,” Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no.12, 123507 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.123507 [arXiv:2311.07670 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Collapsing domain wall net- works: impact on pulsar timing arrays and primordial black holes,

    R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujol` as and F. Rompineve, “Collapsing domain wall net- works: impact on pulsar timing arrays and primordial black holes,” JCAP 06 (2024), 020 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/06/020 [arXiv:2401.14331 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Primordial black holes from axion domain wall col- lapse,

    D. I. Dunsky and M. Kongsore, “Primordial black holes from axion domain wall col- lapse,” JHEP 06 (2024), 198 doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2024)198 [arXiv:2402.03426 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Effective Actions for Domain Wall Dynamics,

    J. J. Blanco-Pillado, A. Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, D. Jim´ enez-Aguilar and J. M. Queiruga, “Effective Actions for Domain Wall Dynamics,” [arXiv:2411.13521 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets,

    B. Fuks, J. H. Kim and S. J. Lee, “Scrutinizing the Higgs quartic coupling at a future 100 TeV proton–proton collider with taus and b-jets,” Phys. Lett. B771 (2017), 354-358 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.05.075 [arXiv:1704.04298 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Measuring the quartic Higgs self-coupling at a multi-TeV muon collider,

    M. Chiesa, F. Maltoni, L. Mantani, B. Mele, F. Piccinini and X. Zhao, “Measuring the quartic Higgs self-coupling at a multi-TeV muon collider,” JHEP 09 (2020), 098 doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2020)098 [arXiv:2003.13628 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    HHH whitepaper,

    H. Abouabid, A. Arhrib, H. Arnold, D. Azevedo, V. Brigljevic, M. Chen, D. Diaz, J. Duarte, T. du Pree and J. E. Falaki, et al. “HHH whitepaper,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024), 1183 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13376-3 [arXiv:2407.03015 [hep-ph]]. 20

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.