Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 46 references

No room for minimal monopole dark matter

T0 review · 0 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 In the minimal SO(3)/SO(2) dark sector, the stable W' vector boson always outnumbers the monopoles, so monopoles cannot be the dark matter.

desk verdict A careful no-go result: in the minimal SO(3) 't Hooft–Polyakov dark sector, the stable W' always outweighs the monopole, so monopole DM needs non-minimal model building. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.21924 v2 pith:MWNXLLUG submitted 2025-09-26 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Felix Brümmer , Giacomo Ferrante , Théodore Fischer , Michele Frigerio This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO PACS 95.35.+d14.80.Hv12.60.-i
keywords darkmattermagneticmonopolesectorSO(3)/SO(2)gaugetheoryrelicabundancethermalfreeze-outphasetransitiontopologicaldefect
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

This paper revisits the calculation of magnetic monopole dark matter in the minimal 't Hooft-Polyakov dark sector, where an $SO(3)$ gauge symmetry breaks to $SO(2)$. It shows that, under minimal assumptions (perturbative couplings and a dark sector that stays in thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model through the phase transition), the stable electrically charged $W'$ vector boson always has a relic abundance far larger than the monopole abundance. The dark matter relic density is therefore dominated by the lightest electrically charged state, never by the lightest magnetically charged one, so dark monopoles cannot constitute a sizeable fraction of dark matter in this model. If correct, this closes the parameter space for monopole dark matter in the simplest calculable setting and redirects attention to non-minimal extensions or non-thermal histories.

What carries the argument

The central object is the minimal 't Hooft-Polyakov model: an $SO(3)$ dark gauge group broken to $SO(2)$ by a scalar triplet, which contains both stable magnetic monopoles, topological defects with mass of order $\eta/g$ and core radius of order $1/(g\eta)$, and a stable electrically charged massive vector boson $W'$. The machinery carrying the argument is the simultaneous computation of the two relic abundances: the monopole yield from the correlation length at the phase transition, using the freeze-out of the correlation length near a continuous transition for second-order cases and the bubble radius at percolation for first-order transitions, followed by diffusive monopole-antimonopole annihilation; and the $W'$ yield from thermal freeze-out or from supercooling dilution and subthermal regeneration. The paper derives explicit scaling formulas for both and shows that the ratio $\Omega_M/\Omega_{W'}$ is far below unity over all allowed choices of $g$, $\lambda$, and $\eta$.

What would settle it

Allow the dark-sector temperature $T'$ to be lower than the Standard Model temperature $T$ while keeping the minimal particle content and perturbative couplings; if a calculation finds a region where the monopole abundance equals or exceeds the $W'$ abundance and both are close to the observed dark matter density, the paper's central claim would be refuted. A lattice simulation of the $SO(3)$ phase transition that yields a monopole production probability per correlation volume substantially larger than the assumed $p=1/8$ would also challenge the conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the minimal $SO(3)/SO(2)$ 't Hooft-Polyakov dark sector cannot produce monopole-dominated dark matter: the relic density is always dominated by the $W'$ vector boson, the lightest electrically charged state. The monopole abundance $\Omega_M$, generated by a thermal phase transition, is computed in all three regimes (second order, weakly first order, and supercooled first order) and is then reduced by monopole-antimonopole annihilation. The $W'$ abundance $\Omega_{W'}$, by contrast, follows from standard thermal freeze-out, or from inflationary dilution plus subthermal regeneration after reheating in the supercooled case. Across the entire perturbative parameter space of the gauge coupling $g$, the quartic coupling $\lambda$, and the symmetry-breaking scale $\eta$, the $W'$ yield exceeds the monopole yield, often by many orders of magnitude. This contradicts an earlier calculation that claimed monopoles could be an $O(1)$ fraction of dark matter.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the dark sector and the Standard Model remain at the same temperature through the phase transition, thanks to a Higgs portal coupling that is strong enough to keep them thermalized yet weak enough to leave the dark sector's effective potential and monopole properties unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the minimal model, any dark matter signal would come from the $W'$ vector boson, so searches should target a stable electrically charged massive state rather than magnetically charged tracks.
  • Parameter regions where the monopole abundance alone could reach the observed density are excluded, because the $W'$ either overcloses the universe or violates dark-radiation and hot-dark-matter bounds.
  • The disagreement with earlier work on monopole dark matter is traced to a different scaling of the monopole yield with the gauge coupling, resolving a numerical discrepancy.
  • Supercooling does not rescue monopole dominance: although thermal inflation dilutes the $W'$ density, the subthermal population regenerated after reheating still overcloses the universe wherever the monopole abundance is large.
  • Any viable monopole dark matter in this framework must come from non-minimal extensions, such as additional charged particles that allow the $W'$ to decay, or from a non-thermal cosmological history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dark sector never fully thermalizes, so that $T'$ is lower than $T$, the ratio $\Omega_M/\Omega_{W'}$ can shift; extending the calculation to a colder dark sector is the most direct test of whether the no-go result holds.
  • The same structural argument, an electrically charged stable state freezing out with a larger abundance than topologically produced monopoles, is likely to hold in other dark-sector gauge groups, so minimal monopole dark matter may be generically disfavored rather than a peculiarity of $SO(3)/SO(2)$.
  • A stable $W'$ with calculable mass and abundance is a testable consequence of the allowed parameter space; finding such a particle in direct-detection or cosmological probes would confirm the model and further exclude monopole dark matter, whereas a magnetic-monopole discovery would falsify the minimal scenario.
  • The paper's intended extensions that make the $W'$ decay suggest that destabilizing the electrically charged partner is the key to monopole-dominated dark matter, and collider searches for the required new states are a concrete probe of that route.
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.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the minimal dark-sector 't Hooft-Polyakov model, with gauge group SO(3) broken to SO(2) by a scalar triplet, and computes the relic abundance of monopoles produced during the thermal phase transition. Three transition regimes are treated: second order (Kibble-Zurek), weakly first order (bubble percolation), and supercooled first order (with thermal inflation and reheating). The monopole abundance is then compared with the thermal relic abundance of the stable W' vector boson, the lightest electrically charged dark-sector state. The central claim is that Ω_W' always far exceeds Ω_M under the stated assumptions, so dark monopoles cannot constitute a sizeable fraction of dark matter in this minimal model.

Significance. If correct, this is a valuable no-go result: it closes the monopole dark-matter window in the simplest SO(3) dark sector by showing that the unavoidable stable vector boson, whose abundance is calculable, always dominates the relic density. The paper is notable for covering all three phase-transition regimes with explicit analytic estimates, for including monopole-antimonopole annihilation, and for presenting parameter-space figures that make the hierarchy visible. The authors clearly state their assumptions and limitations, including the dependence on T'=T and the subleading role of the Higgs portal, which strengthens confidence in the interpretation.

minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.4, Eq. (17)] Equation (17) appears to have a typographical error: the factor I(T) is written in the numerator, but consistency with Eqs. (16) and (18) requires it in the denominator, i.e. n_b^(w)(T) = Γ(T)/(β I(T)) [1-P_f(T)]. The final formula in Eq. (19) is consistent with the denominator version, so this is likely a typo rather than a substantive error.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (9)] The prefactor 1/4 in Eq. (9) is inconsistent with the Kibble estimate n_M ≈ p ξ^{-3} with p=1/8 used earlier in the same section. Inserting ξ ≈ r_M and s = 4γ_* T^3 gives Y_M ≈ (1/32) γ_*^{-1} (r_M T_c)^{-3}. Please check whether a factor of 8 is missing.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusions] The no-go result is derived under the explicit assumption that the dark sector remains in thermal equilibrium with the SM (T'=T) through the phase transition. Since the Conclusions note that Ω_M/Ω_W' may vary if T'<T, I recommend stating this condition explicitly in the abstract so that the claim 'always far larger' is not read as unconditional.
  4. [§3, text near Eq. (28)] The word 'dominantes' should be 'dominates'.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The two values of v_b used for the red curves are mentioned in the text but not in the caption; adding them to the caption would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the monopole and W' abundances are derived from model parameters and standard cosmology, with the observed DM density used only as a comparison benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison, Omega_M much less than Omega_{W'}, is obtained from two independent calculation chains: the monopole abundance from Kibble-Zurek scaling or bubble percolation plus annihilation, and the W' abundance from thermal freeze-out or supercooling dilution and reheating. Each abundance is expressed directly in terms of the model parameters g, lambda, eta (and m0), together with standard cosmological quantities such as gamma_* and M_Pl; no parameter is fitted to the observed dark matter density, and neither abundance is normalized to the other. The observed Omega_DM is used only as a boundary check for plotting, not as an input determining the ratio. The assumptions that the dark sector is thermalized with the SM via the Higgs portal and that lambda_phiH is small enough not to perturb the dark-sector potential are explicitly stated and their relaxation is acknowledged in the conclusions; they are physical assumptions rather than circular definitions. The only self-references are to the companion paper [14] as a pointer for future extensions and to the authors' own future work, which is not load-bearing for the central claim. Disagreement with earlier work [4] is based on explicit scaling of the computed yields, not on citation authority. Therefore the derivation is self-contained and no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or interactions. It depends on standard cosmology, Kibble-Zurek and bubble nucleation theory, the Preskill annihilation formula, and a set of stated model assumptions (thermalisation, perturbative couplings, instant reheating). The only manually chosen input is the bubble wall velocity in the weakly first-order case.

free parameters (1)
  • Bubble wall velocity v_b
    In Eq. (19) the monopole yield from a weakly first-order transition depends on v_b, which is treated as a free parameter; figures show two choices. The conclusion holds for both.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The universe is radiation dominated with standard entropy and Hubble relations (g* degrees of freedom).
    Used in Eqs. (4)-(9) to convert temperatures and densities.
  • domain assumption The dark sector and the Standard Model stay thermalised with T' = T during and after the phase transition.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2 and used to set the W' thermal abundance; this is the paper's weakest assumption.
  • standard math Monopoles form with probability p = 1/8 from the vacuum manifold SO(3)/SO(2) approximately S^2 (Kibble mechanism).
    Used in n_M approximately xi^-3/8; follows from the topology of the vacuum manifold and reference [26].
  • domain assumption The phase transition for lambda > g^2 is second order or crossover by analogy with lattice studies of similar gauge-Higgs theories.
    Section 2.2; the paper uses an orange SOPT benchmark despite perturbative failure in that region.
  • domain assumption Monopole-antimonopole annihilation follows the Preskill formula, Eq. (23).
    Borrowed from references [41,42]; controls the final monopole yield after production.
  • domain assumption Reheating after a supercooled first-order phase transition is instantaneous.
    Used in Eq. (34) to compute the subthermal W' population; the authors note this is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No room for minimal monopole dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWNXLLUG

@misc{pith2026250921924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No room for minimal monopole dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWNXLLUG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.21924}
}
abstract

The magnetic monopole of a dark sector has been advocated as an appealing dark matter candidate. We revisit the computation of the monopole abundance $\Omega_M$, generated by a thermal phase transition in the minimal 't Hooft-Polyakov model. We explore the three regimes where the phase transition is second order, weakly first order, or supercooled, identifying the parameter space regions where $\Omega_M$ can match the observed dark matter abundance. However, the dark sector necessarily contains a stable electrically-charged particle, namely a massive vector boson, with a calculable abundance $\Omega_{W'}$. We show that, under minimal assumptions, $\Omega_{W'}$ is always far larger than $\Omega_M$: dark monopoles cannot constitute a sizeable fraction of dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.21924 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The nature of the phase transition depends on the choice of the couplings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Relic density of the vectors W′ (blue) and of the monopoles M (red) after a SOPT. In the grey region the whole dark sector is not thermalised with the SM; below the purple line, the transverse dark gauge bosons are not thermalised with the rest of the dark sector. For the choice of parameters in the left panel, the W′ s freeze-out when they are non-relativistic, while the monopoles are produced by the KZ mechanism (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left panel: Evolution of the bounce action S3 (orange) as a function of the temperature, in the case of a wFOPT. The nucleation temperature Tn corresponds to the crossing of the orange and black lines. The phase transition ends at T = Tp, where bubbles of the true vacuum percolate. T0 is the temperature at which the symmetry-preserving point ceases to be a local minimum, and the thermal barrier vanishes. Right panel… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The monopole abundance (red) after a wFOPT, taking into account later annihilations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Relic abundance of monopoles (red) and dark gauge bosons (thick blue), for a super [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In the opposite limit, mρ ≪ mW′, the thermally averaged cross-section is not suppressed, ⟨σv⟩W′W′→HH ≈ λ 2 ϕH 384πm2 W′ , (32) and the freeze-out happens at xf ≫ 1. In the region g 2 ∼ λϕH ≫ λ, this annihilation channel should be added to the one in Eqs. (30) and (31),…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Dark matter monopoles, vectors and photons,

    V. V. Khoze and G. Ro, “Dark matter monopoles, vectors and photons,”JHEP, vol. 10, p. 061, 2014, 1406.2291

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    Topological Dark Matter,

    H. Murayama and J. Shu, “Topological Dark Matter,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 686, pp. 162–165, 2010, 0905.1720

    arXiv 2010

  3. [2]

    Monopoles, strings and dark matter,

    C. Gomez Sanchez and B. Holdom, “Monopoles, strings and dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 83, p. 123524, 2011, 1103.1632

    arXiv 2011

  4. [3]

    Hidden sector monopole, vector dark matter and dark radiation with Higgs portal,

    S. Baek, P. Ko, and W.-I. Park, “Hidden sector monopole, vector dark matter and dark radiation with Higgs portal,”JCAP, vol. 10, p. 067, 2014, 1311.1035

    arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Suppressing the QCD Axion Abundance by Hidden Monopoles,

    M. Kawasaki, F. Takahashi, and M. Yamada, “Suppressing the QCD Axion Abundance by Hidden Monopoles,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 753, pp. 677–681, 2016, 1511.05030

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Unified Origin of Axion and Monopole Dark Matter, and Solution to the Domain-wall Problem,

    R. Sato, F. Takahashi, and M. Yamada, “Unified Origin of Axion and Monopole Dark Matter, and Solution to the Domain-wall Problem,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 98, no. 4, p. 043535, 2018, 1805.10533

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Hidden monopole dark matter via axion portal and its implications for direct detection searches, beam-dump experiments, and the H 0 tension,

    R. Daido, S.-Y. Ho, and F. Takahashi, “Hidden monopole dark matter via axion portal and its implications for direct detection searches, beam-dump experiments, and the H 0 tension,” JHEP, vol. 01, p. 185, 2020, 1909.03627

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Hidden Sector Monopole Dark Matter with Matter Domination,

    M. L. Graesser and J. K. Osi´ nski, “Hidden Sector Monopole Dark Matter with Matter Domination,”JHEP, vol. 11, p. 133, 2020, 2007.07917

    arXiv 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Gravitational waves and monopoles dark matter from first-order phase transition,

    J. Yang, R. Zhou, and L. Bian, “Gravitational waves and monopoles dark matter from first-order phase transition,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 839, p. 137822, 2023, 2204.07540

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Electroweak-Symmetric Dark Monopoles from Pre- heating,

    Y. Bai, M. Korwar, and N. Orlofsky, “Electroweak-Symmetric Dark Monopoles from Pre- heating,”JHEP, vol. 07, p. 167, 2020, 2005.00503. 16

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Unified weak and electromagnetic interactions without neutral currents,

    H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unified weak and electromagnetic interactions without neutral currents,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 28, p. 1494, 1972

    1972

  4. [12]

    Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories,

    G. ’t Hooft, “Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 79, pp. 276–284, 1974

    1974

  5. [13]

    Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,

    A. M. Polyakov, “Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory,”JETP Lett., vol. 20, pp. 194– 195, 1974

    1974

  6. [14]

    Dark monopole dark matter,

    F. Br¨ ummer, G. Ferrante, T. Fischer, and M. Frigerio, “Dark monopole dark matter,”to appear

  7. [15]

    Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature,

    L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, “Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 9, pp. 3320–3341, 1974

    1974

  8. [16]

    The Electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis,

    G. W. Anderson and L. J. Hall, “The Electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 45, pp. 2685–2698, 1992

    1992

  9. [17]

    Towards the theory of the electroweak phase transition,

    M. Dine, R. G. Leigh, P. Y. Huet, A. D. Linde, and D. A. Linde, “Towards the theory of the electroweak phase transition,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 46, pp. 550–571, 1992, hep-ph/9203203

    1992 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond leading-order,

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa, “The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond leading-order,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 47, p. 3546, 1993, hep-ph/9212235. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 50, 6662 (1994)]

    1994 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Critical Higgs mass and temperature dependence of gauge boson masses in the SU(2) gauge Higgs model,

    F. Karsch, T. Neuhaus, A. Patkos, and J. Rank, “Critical Higgs mass and temperature dependence of gauge boson masses in the SU(2) gauge Higgs model,”Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl., vol. 53, pp. 623–625, 1997, hep-lat/9608087

    1997 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Where the electroweak phase transition ends,

    M. Gurtler, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, and A. Schiller, “Where the electroweak phase transition ends,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 56, pp. 3888–3895, 1997, hep-lat/9704013

    1997 arXiv

  13. [21]

    The Uni- versality class of the electroweak theory,

    K. Rummukainen, M. Tsypin, K. Kajantie, M. Laine, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “The Uni- versality class of the electroweak theory,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 532, pp. 283–314, 1998, hep- lat/9805013

    1998

  14. [22]

    Three-dimensional U(1) gauge + Higgs theory as an effective theory for finite temperature phase transitions,

    K. Kajantie, M. Karjalainen, M. Laine, and J. Peisa, “Three-dimensional U(1) gauge + Higgs theory as an effective theory for finite temperature phase transitions,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 520, pp. 345–381, 1998, hep-lat/9711048

    1998 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Vortex interactions and thermally induced crossover from type-I to type-II superconductivity,

    J. Hove, S. Mo, and A. Sudbo, “Vortex interactions and thermally induced crossover from type-I to type-II superconductivity,”Phys. Rev. B, vol. 66, p. 064524, 2000, cond- mat/0202215

    2000

  16. [24]

    First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories at Finite Temperature,

    P. H. Ginsparg, “First Order and Second Order Phase Transitions in Gauge Theories at Finite Temperature,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 170, pp. 388–408, 1980

    1980

  17. [25]

    Quantum field theory and critical phenomena,

    J. Zinn-Justin, “Quantum field theory and critical phenomena,”Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys., vol. 113, pp. 1–1054, 2002. 17

    2002

  18. [26]

    Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,

    T. W. B. Kibble, “Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings,”J. Phys. A, vol. 9, pp. 1387– 1398, 1976

    1976

  19. [27]

    Cosmological Experiments in Superfluid Helium?,

    W. H. Zurek, “Cosmological Experiments in Superfluid Helium?,”Nature, vol. 317, pp. 505– 508, 1985

    1985

  20. [28]

    Cosmological experiments in condensed matter systems,

    W. H. Zurek, “Cosmological experiments in condensed matter systems,”Phys. Rept., vol. 276, pp. 177–221, 1996, cond-mat/9607135

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Universality of phase transition dynamics: Topological Defects from Symmetry Breaking,

    A. del Campo and W. H. Zurek, “Universality of phase transition dynamics: Topological Defects from Symmetry Breaking,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, vol. 29, no. 8, p. 1430018, 2014, 1310.1600

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gravitational Field of a Global Monopole,

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational Field of a Global Monopole,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 63, p. 341, 1989

    1989

  23. [31]

    Global monopoles do not ’collapse’,

    S. H. Rhie and D. P. Bennett, “Global monopoles do not ’collapse’,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 67, p. 1173, 1991

    1991

  24. [32]

    Scaling property and peculiar velocity of global monopoles,

    M. Yamaguchi, “Scaling property and peculiar velocity of global monopoles,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 65, p. 063518, 2002, hep-ph/0107230

    2002 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Evolution of local and global monopole networks,

    C. J. A. P. Martins and A. Achucarro, “Evolution of local and global monopole networks,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 78, p. 083541, 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves,

    P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, and L. Wu, “Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves,”Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., vol. 135, p. 104094, 2024, 2305.02357

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,

    A. D. Linde, “Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 216, p. 421, 1983. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]

    1983

  28. [36]

    The supercooling window at weak and strong coupling,

    N. Levi, T. Opferkuch, and D. Redigolo, “The supercooling window at weak and strong coupling,”JHEP, vol. 02, p. 125, 2023, 2212.08085

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Model-independent radiative symmetry breaking and gravitational waves,

    A. Salvio, “Model-independent radiative symmetry breaking and gravitational waves,” JCAP, vol. 04, p. 051, 2023, 2302.10212

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Supercooling in radiative symmetry breaking: theory extensions, gravitational wave detection and primordial black holes,

    A. Salvio, “Supercooling in radiative symmetry breaking: theory extensions, gravitational wave detection and primordial black holes,”JCAP, vol. 12, p. 046, 2023, 2307.04694

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gravitational Waves from Supercool Axions,

    L. Delle Rose, G. Panico, M. Redi, and A. Tesi, “Gravitational Waves from Supercool Axions,”JHEP, vol. 04, p. 025, 2020, 1912.06139

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Escape from supercooling with or without bub- bles: gravitational wave signatures,

    M. Lewicki, O. Pujol` as, and V. Vaskonen, “Escape from supercooling with or without bub- bles: gravitational wave signatures,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 81, no. 9, p. 857, 2021, 2106.09706

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    On the Concentration of Relic Magnetic Monopoles in the Universe,

    Y. B. Zeldovich and M. Y. Khlopov, “On the Concentration of Relic Magnetic Monopoles in the Universe,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 79, pp. 239–241, 1978

    1978

  34. [42]

    Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles,

    J. Preskill, “Cosmological Production of Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 43, p. 1365, 1979. 18

    1979

  35. [43]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects. Cambridge University Press, 7 2000

    2000

  36. [44]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner,The Early Universe, vol. 69. Taylor and Francis, 5 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Probing Hidden Monopole Dark Matter through Axion Portal Coupling,

    H. Shu-Yu, “Probing Hidden Monopole Dark Matter through Axion Portal Coupling,” other thesis

  38. [46]

    Super-cool Dark Matter,

    T. Hambye, A. Strumia, and D. Teresi, “Super-cool Dark Matter,”JHEP, vol. 08, p. 188, 2018, 1805.01473. 19

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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