QCD Axion Domain Walls from Super-Cooling First Order Phase Transition

Kun-Feng Lyu; Yue Zhao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

QCD Axion Domain Walls from Super-Cooling First Order Phase Transition

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A supercooled first-order phase transition near the QCD scale can send the QCD axion through a brief kinetic rotation and then, via stochastic bubble reheating, create axion domain walls even without cosmic strings.

desk verdict New mechanism for QCD axion domain walls from FOPT reheating inhomogeneity, but Eq. (9) has a sign/power error in the trapping-temperature redshift factor that shifts the claimed boundaries by orders of magnitude; worth refereeing, not yet quantitatively reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19918 v1 pith:V6P6VNND submitted 2025-06-24 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Kun-Feng Lyu , Yue Zhao This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.CO

keywords QCDaxiondomainwallsfirst-orderphasetransitionkineticmisalignmentdarkmatterpulsartimingarraybubblenucleationoverclosure

topics 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 claims that a supercooled first-order phase transition near the QCD scale—the kind that could explain the recently reported pulsar-timing-array gravitational-wave excess—significantly alters the early-universe behavior of the QCD axion. When the transition reheats the Standard Model bath, the axion potential suddenly flattens, so the field's existing velocity sends it rotating through its potential in a short 'mini kinetic misalignment' stage. Because bubble nucleation is stochastic, different bubbles reheat at slightly different times, leaving different axion phases in different regions; when the QCD potential reasserts itself, the axion settles into different minima in neighboring regions, forming domain walls. These walls appear even though no cosmic strings exist, because the axion's global symmetry was broken before inflation. In the parameter range where the walls are infinitely extended, they enter a scaling regime and overclose the universe, so that combination of axion and phase transition is observationally excluded.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the coupling between the sharply temperature-dependent axion potential and the spatially stochastic reheating of bubble nucleation. Before the transition the axion mass grows as $m_a(T)\propto T^{-4}$, so reheating above $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ flattens the potential and turns the field's oscillation into a rotation; this is the 'mini kinetic misalignment' stage. Bubble nucleation is stochastic, so each bubble reheats at a slightly different time and the axion velocity phase at reheating differs from bubble to bubble. Continuity pins the field at each bubble wall near $\theta_a=0$, and the interior rotation sends a gradient wave inward; condition (9), $m_a(T_{\rm PT})\langle\theta_a\rangle/\beta\,(T_{\rm trap}/T_\Lambda)>\pi$, states when the inward-propagating amplitude before trapping exceeds half a period, seeding different minima in different regions. The percolation threshold $p_c=0.31$ then determines whether the resulting walls are finite closed bubbles or infinitely extended walls that enter the scaling regime.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional lattice simulation of stochastic bubble nucleation, merger, and axion field evolution would settle the claim: if the maximum axion amplitude reached in any region before trapping stays below $\pi$ for parameter points inside the dark region of Fig. 6, the domain-wall condition (Eq. (9)) fails and the overclosure conclusion does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that spontaneous breaking of the axion's global symmetry before inflation, followed by a supercooled first-order phase transition that reheats the Standard Model above the QCD confinement scale, converts the conventional axion misalignment picture into a rotation-dominated stage. The axion's temperature-dependent mass, $m_a(T)\propto T^{-4}$, makes the potential flatten sharply upon reheating, so the field's velocity at the phase-transition moment can carry it over potential barriers in the mini kinetic misalignment stage. Because bubble nucleation is stochastic, each bubble interior reheats at a slightly different time, so the axion's velocity phase differs from bubble to bubble; the bubble wall, pinned near $\theta_a=0$ by continuity, launches inward-propagating gradients. If the amplitude accumulated before trapping satisfies $m_a(T_{\rm PT})\langle\theta_a\rangle/\beta\,(T_{\rm trap}/T_\Lambda)>\pi$ (Eq. (9)), the axion ends up in different vacuum values in different regions, producing QCD axion domain walls decoupled from cosmic strings. In the feeble reheating case, these walls can be infinitely extended when the percolation threshold is crossed; their tension, $\sim m_{a,0}f_a^2$, far exceeds the observational upper bound, so they dominate the universe and contradict observation.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on each reheated bubble interior behaving as a coherently rotating axion patch whose boundary at the bubble wall stays pinned near zero field, and on that coherent rotation surviving the full three-dimensional merger of many bubbles; the paper checks this only with a one-dimensional simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The axion relic abundance can no longer be read off the initial misalignment angle alone: the phase transition resets the effective misalignment angle, shifting the standard relation between $\theta_{a,i}$ and the dark-matter density.
Domain walls form without cosmic strings in a sizeable part of the $H_\Lambda$-$f_a$ plane shown in Fig. 6, undermining the usual assumption that pre-inflation symmetry breaking guarantees freedom from axion domain walls.
In the regions where the walls are infinitely extended, they enter the scaling regime and overclose the universe, so the pulsar-timing-motivated supercooled phase transition is excluded there in the presence of the QCD axion.
In the feeble-coupling case, extended infinite walls form when the volume fraction of the selected vacuum exceeds the percolation threshold; in the instantaneous-reheating case, only small enclosed walls with size $\sim m_{a,0}^{-1}$ can form, so the overclosure bound does not apply in that limit.

Reading between the lines

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

We speculate that the same boundary-condition logic applies to any axion-like particle with a steeply temperature-dependent mass, so the $H_\Lambda$-$f_a$ plane in Fig. 6 could serve as a template for broader ALP cosmologies, though the paper only treats the QCD axion.
We suspect the 1D simulation may exaggerate the coherence of the rotating interior; a full 3D nucleation-merger simulation could shrink the domain-wall region in Fig. 6 or erase it entirely if gradient energy escapes before trapping.
If finite closed walls do form and collapse, their decay into axions and gravitational waves at a specific epoch would be an observable signature that connects the phase transition to axion physics; this is an extension the paper mentions as future work but does not itself establish.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this is a genuinely new mechanism — QCD axion domain walls produced by the inhomogeneous reheating from a supercooled FOPT — but the paper's central condition, Eq. (9), has a redshift-factor error that could shift the claimed DW boundaries by orders of magnitude. The qualitative idea is worth taking seriously; the quantitative map in Fig. 6 is not yet reliable.

What's new and good: The authors correctly identify that in a pre-inflation PQ-breaking scenario, a supercooled FOPT reheating the SM above Λ_QCD first sends the axion into a transient 'mini kinetic misalignment' phase, and then the stochastic spread in bubble reheating times creates spatial gradients in the axion phase. When the axion mass turns on, those gradients can freeze into domain walls in the absence of cosmic strings. That wall-from-bubble-fluctuation mechanism is not in the cited kinetic misalignment or FOPT papers. The homogeneous WKB evolution is standard and correctly applied; the 1D multi-bubble simulation in Fig. 4 is a reasonable sanity check and shows the claimed pattern. The paper is honest about leaving 3D merger dynamics to future work.

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, the sign/power error: the text states T_trap/T_Λ = (K(T_Λ)/V(T_Λ))^{1/14}. But with K ∝ a^{-6} and V ∝ m_a^2 ∝ a^8, the ratio K/V ∝ a^{-14} ∝ T^{14}. Since K/V > 1 at T_Λ, the correct relation is T_trap/T_Λ = (K/V)^{-1/14}. The printed version puts the trapping temperature above T_Λ and the amplitude in Eq. (9) too large; for K/V ~ 10^14 the amplitude is off by a factor ~100. That directly moves the 'DW formation' and 'extended DW' boundaries in Fig. 6. Second, Eq. (9) is an order-of-magnitude estimate that treats the trapped amplitude as a simple redshifted free-field value, but the phase at trapping is set by nonlinear dynamics; the 1D simulation is supportive but not a substitute for a proper 3D treatment. Third, the benchmark choices (θ_a,i = 2, T_PT = T_QCD or T_Λ/2) are illustrative; the boundaries carry no uncertainties. None of this invalidates the qualitative mechanism, and there is no circular reasoning — the condition is derived from assumed parameters, not fitted to the target outcome.

Who this is for: anyone working on axion cosmology in nonstandard thermal histories or interpreting the PTA signal with supercooled FOPTs. The paper deserves a serious referee — the new mechanism and its cosmological implications are important enough — but the referee should require the redshift correction and a 3D consistency check before the quantitative claims stand. I would not cite Fig. 6 as it currently stands.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the QCD axion cosmology in a universe where a supercooled first-order phase transition (FOPT) in a dark scalar sector reheats the Standard Model bath to temperatures near or above the QCD scale. Under pre-inflationary PQ breaking, all Hubble patches initially share a common axion angle. The authors propose that the reheating event temporarily flattens the axion potential, inducing a transient 'mini kinetic misalignment' phase in which the axion field rotates. They then argue that stochastic bubble nucleation produces spatial variation in the reheating history, so different bubbles develop different axion phases; when the axion potential regrows, domain walls form even in the absence of cosmic strings. The paper derives an order-of-magnitude criterion, Eq. (9), supports it with a one-dimensional multi-bubble simulation, and maps the DW-forming regions on the H_Lambda-f_a plane for two reheating scenarios in Fig. 6. It concludes that infinitely extended domain walls in the feeble-coupling case enter scaling and eventually overclose the universe, while finite enclosed walls collapse into axion radiation.

Significance. If the mechanism works, it is significant: it connects PTA/NANOGrav-motivated supercooled FOPTs to axion cosmology, produces a new channel for QCD axion domain walls without cosmic strings, and could impose strong constraints on the FOPT parameter space. The paper has real strengths: the homogeneous WKB evolution is standard, the 1D multi-bubble simulation directly illustrates the proposed effect, and the authors are explicit about the assumptions that go into the domain-wall criterion. At the same time, the quantitative boundaries of the central claim rest on an order-of-magnitude formula and on 3D merging dynamics that are not simulated, so the manuscript currently establishes the qualitative existence of the effect more firmly than it establishes the precise parameter-space regions.

major comments (3)

[Section 'Axion Field Evolution - Homogenous Background', text after Eq. (4); Eq. (9)] The trapping-temperature ratio is stated with the wrong power of the kinetic-to-potential ratio. With K proportional to a^{-6} and Vmax proportional to m_a(T)^2 proportional to T^{-8} proportional to a^8 after reheating, K/Vmax is proportional to T^{14}. Since the mini-kinetic-misalignment condition in Eq. (4) imposes K(T_Lambda)/Vmax(T_Lambda) > 1, the trapping temperature lies below T_Lambda, so the correct relation is Ttrap/T_Lambda = (K(T_Lambda)/Vmax(T_Lambda))^{-1/14}, not the printed (K(T_Lambda)/V(T_Lambda))^{1/14}. The positive power overestimates the redshift factor by a factor of (K/V)^{2/14}, which is about 10^2 for K/V ~ 10^{14}; through Eq. (9) this directly shifts the DW-formation and extended-DW boundaries in Fig. 6 by orders of magnitude. This needs to be corrected and Fig. 6 redrawn before the quantitative claims can be assessed.
[Section 'Axion Field Evolution - Inhomogeneity from Bubbles'; Fig. 4] The central claim of domain-wall formation, and especially of infinitely extended walls, is supported by a single 1D multi-bubble simulation, while the paper explicitly states that 'Modeling the full three-dimensional dynamics of bubble merging is highly nontrivial and lies beyond the scope of this work.' The extended-infinite-DW region in Fig. 6 is obtained by applying a 3D percolation threshold (p_c = 0.31) to randomly assigned phase signs, but the 1D simulation cannot validate that this sign distribution survives 3D bubble collisions, wall curvature, and gradient-energy draining. If 3D effects suppress the coherent rotation or correlate the phases, the extended-DW region would shrink or disappear. Because this region is the basis of the overclosure constraint, this is a load-bearing gap rather than a presentation issue.
[Fig. 6 and Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) is an order-of-magnitude criterion with an O(1) threshold (pi), and the phase at trapping is set by nonlinear dynamics rather than by the simple free-massless redshift factor used in the formula. The paper tests this criterion with only one 1D benchmark (Figs. 3-4) and does not scan over the axion phase phi_PT, the bubble radius r_s, or the transition strength beta/H_Lambda. Nevertheless, Fig. 6 draws sharp boundaries for the DW-formation and extended-DW regions without any uncertainty band or sensitivity estimate. The figure should be replaced or supplemented by a band or multi-benchmark scan so that the claimed exclusion regions are not read as precise predictions.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is typeset in a way that is very difficult to parse; the relation between the two scenario labels, the axion mass ratio, and the condition m_a(Tosc) ~ 3Hosc should be written out explicitly.
[Text after Eq. (4)] The notation 'V(T_Lambda)' should be 'Vmax(T_Lambda)' for consistency with the definition given just before Eq. (4).
[Fig. 2] Figure 2 has no colorbar or explicit scale for the filled contours, so the reader cannot quantitatively read the reset theta_a values from the plot.
[Section 'Axion Field Evolution - Inhomogeneity from Bubbles', around Eq. (8)] The step-function expression for m_a uses r_s + delta_t, but the time variable delta_t is not defined clearly; the text should state explicitly that delta_t is the time elapsed since reheating of the bubble interior.
[Throughout] There are a few language and typographical issues, such as 'the hight of the potential energy barrier' and 'in the aftermentioned maintext'; these should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the domain-wall condition Eq. (9) is derived from assumed axion/FOPT parameters and standard dynamics, not fitted to its own target outcome.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Equations (1)-(3) are standard misalignment formulas evaluated at the FOPT, Eq. (4) defines mini kinetic misalignment by comparing kinetic and potential terms, and Eq. (9) is obtained from an independent physical estimate (axion velocity multiplied by the beta^-1 growth time and redshifted to the trapping temperature) that is not fitted to the DW-formation outcome. The 1D multi-bubble simulation in Fig. 4 is used as an illustration of the mechanism, not as the source of Eq. (9). The paper invokes standard external results: WKB number conservation [31], bubble nucleation distribution [35], percolation threshold [40], and DW scaling [37,38]; none of these is a self-citation by the authors, and the central claim does not reduce to a citation chain. The main limitations are quantitative rather than circular: the paper explicitly defers full 3D merging dynamics ("Modeling the full three-dimensional dynamics of bubble merging is highly nontrivial and lies beyond the scope of this work"), and the printed trapping-temperature factor (Ttrap/TLambda) = (K(TLambda)/V(TLambda))^{1/14} appears to have the opposite power from the stated a^-6 and a^8 scalings (which would give Ttrap/TLambda = (K/V)^{-1/14}). These concerns affect the robustness of the predicted parameter regions, but they are not instances of a prediction being equivalent to its input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a standard QCD axion mass temperature dependence, a pre-inflation PQ-breaking timeline, stochastic bubble nucleation, and a set of hand-picked benchmark parameters. No constants are fitted to data, and no self-citations are used; the free-parameter burden is in the illustrative choices (theta_a,i, TPT, beta/H_Lambda) that set the plotted DW regions.

free parameters (8)

theta_a,i = 0.2 (Fig. 2), 2 (Fig. 6)
Initial axion misalignment angle, assumed uniform from pre-inflation PQ breaking; chosen for illustration, central to both reset contours and DW regions.
sin(phi_PT) = 1/sqrt(2) (Fig. 2), random phase (DW analysis)
The axion phase at the FOPT is not predicted; the figures use an averaged value or assume uniform randomness.
TPT = T_QCD (Scenario A), T_Lambda/2 (Scenario B)
Phase transition temperature benchmark used in Fig. 6; enters ma(TPT) in Eq. (9).
beta/H_Lambda = 5 and 10
Inverse bubble nucleation duration relative to Hubble; Eq. (9) scales inversely with beta.
K(T_Lambda)/Vmax(T_Lambda) threshold = O(1), imposed
The DW regions in Fig. 6 require the axion to surmount the potential barrier; the O(1) coefficient is not derived.
H_Lambda = scanned ~1e-9 to 1e-7 eV
Hubble scale at dark-sector/radiation equality, sets FOPT energy scale; an input parameter, not derived.
fa = scanned ~1e8 to 1e12 GeV
Axion decay constant; input parameter scanned in Fig. 6.
ma,0/beta = 5e4 (Fig. 5 example)
Used only in the illustrative instantaneous reheating profile.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The QCD axion mass depends on SM temperature as ma(T) proportional to T^-4 above T_QCD.
Used throughout Eqs. (1)-(3) and the Ttrap scaling; standard high-T QCD susceptibility approximation but cited without source.
domain assumption PQ symmetry is broken before inflation, giving a single initial misalignment angle in all Hubble patches and no cosmic strings.
State in 'Axion Evolution in the non-standard cosmology'; this is what makes unbound DWs possible.
domain assumption Bubble nucleation is stochastic with rate Gamma(t) ~ Gamma_PT exp(beta(t-tPT)), and nucleation times are distributed with width O(0.1) beta^-1 (ref [35]).
Central to the inhomogeneity mechanism; adopted from [35].
ad hoc to paper The bubble wall moves at the speed of light and the axion field outside the bubble remains pinned at theta approximately 0, setting the boundary condition for Eq. (7).
Used in Eq. (8) and the 1D simulations; wall velocity and pinning are idealizations.
ad hoc to paper The 1D multi-bubble simulation captures the physics relevant for DW formation; full 3D merging is not simulated.
Authors state 3D modeling is beyond scope; extended infinite DWs are inferred from percolation, not simulated.
standard math Z2 percolation with p_c = 0.31 in 3D describes extended infinite DW probability.
Used to identify the darker region in Fig. 6; cited from Stauffer [40].
standard math Axion number density to entropy density is conserved during WKB oscillation before FOPT.
Basis of Eqs. (2)-(3); cited [31].

invented entities (1)

Dark scalar field phi triggering the supercooled FOPT
purpose: Provides the potential energy that dominates before the transition and reheats the SM bath to T_Lambda.
Assumed from the FOPT literature; no direct detection. Not newly proposed by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QCD Axion Domain Walls from Super-Cooling First Order Phase Transition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6P6VNND

@misc{pith2026250619918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QCD Axion Domain Walls from Super-Cooling First Order Phase Transition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6P6VNND}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19918}
}

read the original abstract

The QCD axion is a well-motivated hypothetical particle beyond the Standard Model (SM) and a compelling dark matter candidate. Its relic abundance is highly sensitive to the thermal history of the universe when the temperature is around the QCD confinement scale. Meanwhile, the NANOGrav Collaboration has reported evidence for a stochastic gravitational wave background, which could originate from a supercooled first-order phase transition (FOPT) with a nucleation temperature around the O(MeV-GeV) scale. We explore how such an FOPT might alter the evolution of the QCD axion. Our findings suggest that it could induce the axion to go through a short stage of mini kinetic misalignment. Moreover, in some parameter regime, the formation of QCD axion domain walls becomes generically expected. This has intriguing implications for both the existence of the QCD axion and the FOPT interpretation of the NANOGrav signal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19918 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The contours of the reset [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The axion profiles at different time in the feeble [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The axion profiles evolution in the feeble coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The axion field angle profile at different moments. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The parametric space that can produce the DWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Impact of First-order Electroweak Phase Transition on QCD Axion
hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A temporary axion mass spike during a first-order electroweak phase transition can make the QCD axion dark matter over a wide range of decay constants without a tuned initial angle.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

1977
[2]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

1977
[3]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

1978
[4]

Wilczek, Phys

F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

1978
[5]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 166, 493 (1980)

1980
[6]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)

1979
[7]

Agazie et al

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

arXiv 2023
[8]

Antoniadis et al

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

arXiv 2023

Show all 45 references

[9]

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

2023 arXiv
[10]

Xu et al

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

2023 arXiv
[11]

Agazie et al

G. Agazie et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16222 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Afzal et al

A. Afzal et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L11 (2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 971, L27 (2024), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 971, L27 (2024)], arXiv:2306.16219 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Bringmann, P

T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, T. Konstandin, K. Schmidt- Hoberg, and C. Tasillo, JCAP 11, 053 (2023), arXiv:2306.09411 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[14]

Chen, S.-L

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

2024 arXiv
[15]

Wang, (2023), arXiv:2307.15970 [astro-ph.CO]

D. Wang, (2023), arXiv:2307.15970 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Ghosh, A

T. Ghosh, A. Ghoshal, H.-K. Guo, F. Hajkarim, S. F. King, K. Sinha, X. Wang, and G. White, JCAP 05, 100 (2024), arXiv:2307.02259 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Ratzinger and P

W. Ratzinger and P. Schwaller, SciPost Phys. 10, 047 (2021), arXiv:2009.11875 [astro-ph.CO]

2021 arXiv
[18]

Croon and D

D. Croon and D. J. Weir, Contemp. Phys. 65, 75 (2024), arXiv:2410.21509 [hep-ph]

2024
[19]

M. W. Winkler and K. Freese, (2024), arXiv:2401.13729 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[20]

H. An, B. Su, H. Tai, L.-T. Wang, and C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121304 (2024), arXiv:2308.00070 [astro- ph.CO]

2024
[21]

Zheng, F

H.-w. Zheng, F. Gao, L. Bian, S.-x. Qin, and Y.-x. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 111, L021303 (2025), arXiv:2407.03795 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[22]

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

2025 arXiv
[23]

Addazi, Y.-F

A. Addazi, Y.-F. Cai, A. Marciano, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 109, 015028 (2024), arXiv:2306.17205 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Balan, T

S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak, and C. Tasillo, (2025), arXiv:2502.19478 [hep-ph]

2025
[25]

Costa, J

F. Costa, J. Hoefken Zink, M. Lucente, S. Pascoli, and S. Rosauro-Alcaraz, (2025), arXiv:2501.15649 [hep-ph]

2025
[26]

J. a. Gon¸ calves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik, (2025), arXiv:2501.11619 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[27]

J. a. Gon¸ calves, D. Marfatia, A. P. Morais, and R. Pasechnik, JHEP 02, 110 (2025), arXiv:2412.02645 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[28]

Gouttenoire, Phys

Y. Gouttenoire, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 171404 (2023), arXiv:2307.04239 [hep-ph]

2023 arXiv
[29]

Jinno and M

R. Jinno and M. Takimoto, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024009 (2017), arXiv:1605.01403 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[30]

G. Elor, R. Jinno, S. Kumar, R. McGehee, and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211003 (2024), arXiv:2311.16222 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[31]

P. Fox, A. Pierce, and S. D. Thomas, (2004), arXiv:hep- th/0409059

2004
[32]

R. T. Co, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 251802 (2020), arXiv:1910.14152 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[33]

R. T. Co, L. J. Hall, K. Harigaya, K. A. Olive, and S. Verner, JCAP 08, 036 (2020), arXiv:2004.00629 [hep- ph]

2020 arXiv
[34]

Er¨ oncel, R

C. Er¨ oncel, R. Sato, G. Servant, and P. Sørensen, (2024), arXiv:2408.08355 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[35]

M. S. Turner, E. J. Weinberg, and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2384 (1992)

1992
[36]

Vilenkin and E

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

2000
[37]

Garagounis and M

T. Garagounis and M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. D 68, 103506 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212359

2003 arXiv
[38]

A. M. M. Leite and C. J. A. P. Martins, Phys. Rev. D 84, 103523 (2011), arXiv:1110.3486 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[39]

Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 3 (1974)

1974
[40]

Stauffer, Physics Reports 54, 1 (1979)

D. Stauffer, Physics Reports 54, 1 (1979)

1979
[41]

Vachaspati, (2017), arXiv:1706.03868 [hep-th]

T. Vachaspati, (2017), arXiv:1706.03868 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[42]

Ferrer, E

F. Ferrer, E. Masso, G. Panico, O. Pujolas, and 7 F. Rompineve, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 101301 (2019), arXiv:1807.01707 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[43]

Ge, Phys

S. Ge, Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100440 (2020), arXiv:1905.12182 [hep-ph]

2020 arXiv
[44]

S. Ge, J. Guo, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123030 (2024), arXiv:2309.01739 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[45]

D. I. Dunsky and M. Kongsore, JHEP 06, 198 (2024), arXiv:2402.03426 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

1977

[2] [2]

R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

1977

[3] [3]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

1978

[4] [4]

Wilczek, Phys

F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

1978

[5] [5]

M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 166, 493 (1980)

1980

[6] [6]

J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 103 (1979)

1979

[7] [7]

Agazie et al

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

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Antoniadis et al

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

arXiv 2023