arxiv: 2604.20768 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · ✦ hep-ph · astro-ph.CO· hep-th

Recognition: unknown

Primordial Magnetogenesis and Gravitational Waves from ALP-assisted Phase Transition

Pankaj Borah , P. S. Bhupal Dev , Anish Ghoshal

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 23:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

keywords axion-like particlesfirst-order phase transitionprimordial magnetic fieldsstochastic gravitational wave backgroundblazar observationsLISAmagnetogenesisALP decay constant

0 comments

The pith

An ALP-assisted first-order phase transition generates primordial magnetic fields matching blazar data while also producing a stochastic gravitational wave background detectable by LISA.

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

The paper examines an axion-like particle (ALP) model in which a global U(1) symmetry breaks radiatively and couples to the Standard Model through the Higgs portal, triggering a strong first-order phase transition. This transition produces both a large-scale primordial magnetic field, whose present-day strength and coherence length are computed with inverse-cascade evolution, and a stochastic gravitational wave background from bubble collisions and turbulence. For maximally helical magnetic configurations, the field amplitudes reach values consistent with lower bounds inferred from gamma-ray blazar observations by MAGIC, H.E.S.S., and Fermi-LAT. The same range of ALP decay constants (roughly 10^3 to 10^5 GeV) that satisfies those astrophysical constraints simultaneously yields a gravitational-wave signal above the sensitivity of future space-based interferometers such as LISA, while mapping onto effective ALP couplings to photons, gluons, and fermions and favoring ALP masses above 0.1 GeV.

Core claim

In the minimal ALP framework with radiative breaking of a global U(1) and Higgs-portal coupling to the SM, a sufficiently strong FOPT produces both an observable SGWB and a large-scale PMF. For maximally helical PMFs, peak strengths reach B_0 ~ 10^{-9} G with coherence lengths lambda_0 ~ 10^{-3}-10^{-1} Mpc, consistent with IGMF bounds from MAGIC, H.E.S.S., and Fermi-LAT blazar data. The ALP decay constant range 10^3 GeV ≲ f_a ≲ 10^5 GeV that satisfies the gamma-ray blazar constraints simultaneously yields SGWB detectable at LISA and similar instruments, with direct mapping to ALP couplings to SM particles and a preference for m_a ≳ 0.1 GeV.

What carries the argument

The ALP-assisted first-order phase transition, which sources both the primordial magnetic field via magnetogenesis during the transition and the stochastic gravitational wave background from the transition dynamics, with evolution including inverse cascade for helical fields.

Load-bearing premise

The first-order phase transition must be strong enough and the inverse-cascade modeling for maximally helical magnetic fields must be accurate.

What would settle it

Non-detection of the predicted SGWB amplitude by LISA in the frequency band tied to the ALP decay constants that fit blazar data, or direct measurements of intergalactic magnetic fields lying outside the calculated B_0 and lambda_0 range.

read the original abstract

Sufficiently strong first-order phase transitions (FOPTs) in the early Universe can simultaneously produce an observable stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) and a large-scale primordial magnetic field (PMF). The recent $3.8\sigma$ evidence for a non-zero intergalactic MF from anisotropic pair-halo searches using \textit{Fermi}-LAT data further motivates a cosmological origin of this MF. We investigate an FOPT-origin of both cosmic signatures, namely, PMF and SGWB, and the correlation between them, within a minimal axion-like particle (ALP) framework in which a global $U(1)$ symmetry is spontaneously broken through radiative corrections, with the ALP sector coupled to the Standard Model (SM) via Higgs-portal. We compute the present-day PMF amplitude and coherence length for both maximally helical and non-helical configurations, accounting for inverse cascade effects. For maximally helical configurations, we find peak field strengths up to $B_0 \sim 10^{-9}$ G at coherence length $\lambda_0 \sim 10^{-3}-10^{-1}$ Mpc, consistent with lower bounds on the IGMF inferred from blazar observations by MAGIC, H.E.S.S. and {\it Fermi}-LAT. We show that the ALP parameter region consistent with $\gamma$-ray blazar data (assuming maximal helicity) simultaneously produces SGWB detectable at future space-based interferometers, such as LISA, etc., over the ALP decay constant range $10^3~\text{GeV} \lesssim f_a \lesssim 10^5~\text{GeV}$. We directly map these onto effective ALP couplings to SM particles, e.g., photons, gluons, and fermions. This establishes a multi-messenger complementarity between cosmological observables and laboratory/astrophysical ALP searches, with the combined constraints preferring relatively heavy ALPs, $m_a \gtrsim 0.1~\text{GeV}$, in a regime accessible to next-generation intensity and energy-frontier experiments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper maps ALP parameters from a Higgs-portal FOPT to both blazar-matching PMFs (maximal helicity only) and LISA-detectable SGWB, but the overlap depends on assuming near-maximal initial helicity that the model does not obviously generate.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this work takes an ALP with radiative U(1) breaking and Higgs-portal coupling, runs a first-order phase transition, and shows that the f_a range 10^3–10^5 GeV produces a present-day PMF of order 10^{-9} G at 10^{-3}–10^{-1} Mpc coherence length after inverse cascade—matching blazar lower bounds—while the same transition yields a SGWB spectrum that future interferometers could detect. They do this for both helical and non-helical cases and then translate the viable f_a window into effective ALP couplings to photons, gluons, and fermions, with a preference for m_a above 0.1 GeV. That joint mapping is the concrete new piece; earlier papers handled magnetogenesis or GWs from phase transitions separately, and this one puts the two observables on the same ALP parameter plot with explicit ranges. The calculations follow standard MHD evolution and GW formulas, and the abstract is clear about which assumptions drive the results. The soft spot is the helicity requirement. The model has no explicit CP-violating terms, so it is not obvious that the initial magnetic helicity fraction reaches the near-maximal value needed for the inverse cascade to amplify the field enough to hit the blazar bounds. The non-helical branch is computed but falls short, which means the LISA prediction is effectively conditional on the helical case. The FOPT parameters (alpha, beta) are also chosen to make the signals work rather than derived from first principles, which is common but limits how predictive the overlap really is. This is useful for people already working on ALP cosmology or multi-messenger constraints who want concrete numbers to compare against lab bounds. A reader who cares about whether phase transitions can source both fields and waves in one framework will get value from the explicit ranges and the helicity comparison. It is solid enough to deserve a serious referee; the helicity issue and any missing benchmarks can be checked in review.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates an ALP-assisted first-order phase transition in a minimal Higgs-portal model that simultaneously generates a primordial magnetic field (PMF) and a stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB). For maximally helical PMF configurations, it reports present-day field strengths up to B0 ~ 10^{-9} G at coherence lengths 10^{-3}-10^{-1} Mpc that satisfy blazar lower bounds, and shows that the corresponding ALP decay-constant window 10^3 GeV ≲ fa ≲ 10^5 GeV yields an SGWB detectable by LISA and similar future interferometers. The work maps these parameters onto effective ALP couplings to photons, gluons, and fermions, arguing for multi-messenger complementarity with laboratory searches that favor ma ≳ 0.1 GeV.

Significance. If the central assumptions hold, the result supplies a concrete, falsifiable link between gamma-ray constraints on intergalactic magnetic fields, future GW observations, and ALP phenomenology. The explicit computation of both helical and non-helical branches, together with the direct translation to effective couplings, strengthens the multi-messenger aspect and could guide targeted searches at intensity and energy-frontier experiments.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and section describing PMF generation] The central claim that the ALP parameter region consistent with blazar data simultaneously produces LISA-detectable SGWB is restricted to the maximal-helicity branch. The model is a global U(1) with radiative breaking and Higgs-portal coupling; no explicit CP-violating operators are introduced. Without a demonstration that the phase transition naturally yields a helicity fraction close to unity (or a quantitative scan over initial helicity), the mapping from fa to observable SGWB rests on an assumption whose validity is not established in the manuscript.
[Sections on SGWB computation and parameter mapping] The SGWB amplitude and spectrum are derived from FOPT parameters (alpha, beta) that have already been tuned to reproduce the PMF strength and coherence length required by gamma-ray data. This introduces a circular dependence: the detectability prediction is not an independent forecast but follows directly from the same parameter choice that satisfies the blazar bound under maximal helicity. A clearer separation between the PMF-fitting step and the subsequent GW calculation, including propagation of uncertainties, is needed.
[PMF evolution and inverse-cascade subsection] The manuscript states that inverse-cascade evolution is accounted for, yet provides no explicit comparison of the adopted MHD decay laws (e.g., the scaling of magnetic energy and helicity with time) against independent numerical simulations or analytic benchmarks in the literature. Given that the coherence-length and amplitude results are load-bearing for both the blazar consistency and the SGWB prediction, such validation is required.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract uses the placeholder 'etc.' when listing future interferometers; replace with the specific experiments (LISA, DECIGO, etc.) actually considered in the analysis.
[Introduction and results sections] Notation for the present-day field strength B0 and coherence length lambda0 should be defined at first use and kept consistent with the equations that follow.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions, which have helped us improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis. Below we address each major comment in detail.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and section describing PMF generation] The central claim that the ALP parameter region consistent with blazar data simultaneously produces LISA-detectable SGWB is restricted to the maximal-helicity branch. The model is a global U(1) with radiative breaking and Higgs-portal coupling; no explicit CP-violating operators are introduced. Without a demonstration that the phase transition naturally yields a helicity fraction close to unity (or a quantitative scan over initial helicity), the mapping from fa to observable SGWB rests on an assumption whose validity is not established in the manuscript.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this important point. Our manuscript explicitly computes and presents results for both maximally helical and non-helical PMF configurations, as stated in the abstract and the PMF generation sections. The parameter region satisfying blazar lower bounds with a simultaneously LISA-detectable SGWB is indeed found only in the maximal-helicity case. The model is a minimal global U(1) setup without explicit CP-violating operators. We agree that the manuscript does not demonstrate that the phase transition naturally produces a helicity fraction near unity. In the revised manuscript we will clarify that the maximal-helicity results represent the optimistic scenario in which both observables can be simultaneously explained, discuss how helicity generation may arise in ALP-assisted transitions (citing relevant literature on possible mechanisms), and add a quantitative estimate of how the SGWB amplitude scales with the helicity fraction. revision: yes
Referee: [Sections on SGWB computation and parameter mapping] The SGWB amplitude and spectrum are derived from FOPT parameters (alpha, beta) that have already been tuned to reproduce the PMF strength and coherence length required by gamma-ray data. This introduces a circular dependence: the detectability prediction is not an independent forecast but follows directly from the same parameter choice that satisfies the blazar bound under maximal helicity. A clearer separation between the PMF-fitting step and the subsequent GW calculation, including propagation of uncertainties, is needed.

Authors: The referee is correct that the FOPT parameters (alpha, beta) are chosen to reproduce the PMF strength and coherence length required by the gamma-ray data under maximal helicity. This is done deliberately to illustrate the direct correlation between the two cosmological signatures within the same model. The SGWB is therefore a derived prediction rather than an independent forecast. To address the concern, we will revise the relevant sections to first present the FOPT parameters fixed by the PMF requirements, then compute the resulting SGWB spectrum, and include a dedicated discussion of uncertainties in alpha and beta together with their propagation to the GW amplitude and detectability. revision: yes
Referee: [PMF evolution and inverse-cascade subsection] The manuscript states that inverse-cascade evolution is accounted for, yet provides no explicit comparison of the adopted MHD decay laws (e.g., the scaling of magnetic energy and helicity with time) against independent numerical simulations or analytic benchmarks in the literature. Given that the coherence-length and amplitude results are load-bearing for both the blazar consistency and the SGWB prediction, such validation is required.

Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to this. The inverse-cascade evolution is incorporated via standard analytic scaling relations for magnetic energy and helicity decay in MHD turbulence, as commonly used in the primordial-magnetogenesis literature. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit comparisons of these scaling laws against results from numerical simulations of early-Universe MHD turbulence, citing appropriate benchmark studies, to validate the adopted relations and reinforce the robustness of the coherence-length and amplitude predictions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained; no circular reductions identified

full rationale

The paper constructs a minimal ALP model with Higgs-portal coupling, computes the FOPT parameters, then independently evolves the resulting PMF (both maximal-helicity and non-helical branches, including inverse-cascade scaling) and the SGWB spectrum from the same bubble-wall and turbulence sources. The blazar lower bounds are applied only as an external filter on the helical PMF output to delineate a viable f_a interval; the SGWB amplitude is then evaluated over that interval as a separate calculation. No equation reduces to its input by construction, no parameter is fitted to one observable and relabeled a prediction for the other, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation whose content is itself unverified. The explicit statement that both helicity branches are computed further prevents any hidden self-definition of the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the ALP framework with Higgs-portal coupling, standard early-universe cosmology, and several tuned parameters for the phase transition strength and magnetic field evolution.

free parameters (2)

f_a
ALP decay constant range 10^3-10^5 GeV selected to simultaneously satisfy blazar constraints and produce detectable SGWB.
FOPT parameters (e.g., alpha, beta)
Strength and inverse duration of the phase transition adjusted to generate sufficient PMF and GW signals.

axioms (2)

standard math Standard Model of particle physics and Lambda-CDM cosmology
Used for background evolution, particle content, and thermal history of the early universe.
domain assumption Inverse cascade in magnetohydrodynamics for helical fields
Assumed to evolve the magnetic field coherence length and strength from the phase transition epoch to today.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5688 in / 1374 out tokens · 40265 ms · 2026-05-09T23:50:40.350967+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Search for Anisotropic Pair Halos Associated with Blazar Jets
astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

Stacking Fermi-LAT data from 21 blazars aligned to their jet directions detects anisotropic extended emission consistent with pair halos produced by a 2.8 x 10^{-16} G intergalactic magnetic field at 3.8 sigma.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

222 extracted references · 185 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Chatziioannou, T

K. Chatziioannou, T. Dent, M. Fishbach, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond et al.,Compact binary coalescences: gravitational-wave astronomy with ground-based detectors,2409.02037

work page arXiv
[2]

Keitel,LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA Results and Status of the Current Fourth Observing Run, Springer Proc

D. Keitel,LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA Results and Status of the Current Fourth Observing Run, Springer Proc. Phys.425(2025) 13. [3]LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration,Upper Limits on the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Advanced LIGO’s First Observing Run,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 121101 [1612.02029]. [4]LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration,Search for th...

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Search for an isotropic gravitational-wave background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array

D.J. Reardon et al.,Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array,Astrophys. J. Lett.951(2023) L6 [2306.16215]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[4]

Searching for the nano-Hertz stochastic gravitational wave background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I

H. 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) 075024 [2306.16216]. – 28 – [10]NANOGravcollaboration,The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Search for Signals from New Physics,Astrophys. J. Lett.951(2023) L11 [2306.16219]. [11]NANOGravcollaboratio...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[5]

Detecting the Cosmic Gravitational Wave Background with the Big Bang Observer

V. Corbin and N.J. Cornish,Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 2435 [gr-qc/0512039]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[6]

TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

M. Punturo et al.,The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002. [15]TianQincollaboration,TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector,Class. Quant. Grav.33(2016) 035010 [1512.02076]. [16]LISAcollaboration,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,1702.00786

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[7]

Ruan, Z.-K

W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai and Y.-Z. Zhang,Taiji program: Gravitational-wave sources,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35(2020) 2050075 [1807.09495]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

Weltman et al., Publ

A. Weltman et al.,Fundamental physics with the Square Kilometre Array,Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37(2020) e002 [1810.02680]

work page arXiv 2020
[9]

Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO

D. Reitze et al.,Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO,Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51(2019) 035 [1907.04833]. [20]AEDGEcollaboration,AEDGE: Atomic Experiment for Dark Matter and Gravity Exploration in Space,EPJ Quant. Technol.7(2020) 6 [1908.00802]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[10]

Sesana et al., Exper

A. Sesana et al.,Unveiling the gravitational universe atµ-Hz frequencies,Exper. Astron.51 (2021) 1333 [1908.11391]

work page arXiv 2021
[11]

Badurina et al., JCAP05, 011 (2020), 1911.11755

L. Badurina et al.,AION: An Atom Interferometer Observatory and Network,JCAP05 (2020) 011 [1911.11755]

work page arXiv 2020
[12]

Kawamura et al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

S. Kawamura et al.,Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO,PTEP2021(2021) 05A105 [2006.13545]. [24]MAGIS-100collaboration,Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100),Quantum Sci. Technol.6(2021) 044003 [2104.02835]

work page arXiv 2021
[13]

Garcia-Bellido, H

J. Garcia-Bellido, H. Murayama and G. White,Exploring the early Universe with Gaia and Theia,JCAP12(2021) 023 [2104.04778]

work page arXiv 2021
[14]

Aggarwal et al., Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches at MHz to GHz frequencies,Living Rev

N. Aggarwal et al.,Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches at MHz to GHz frequencies,Living Rev. Rel.24(2021) 4 [2011.12414]

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

Berlin, N

A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S.A.R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn et al.,Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 116011 [2112.11465]

work page arXiv 2022
[16]

Herman, L

N. Herman, L. Lehoucq and A. F´ uzfa,Electromagnetic antennas for the resonant detection of the stochastic gravitational wave background,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 124009 [2203.15668]

work page arXiv 2023
[17]

Bringmann, V

T. Bringmann, V. Domcke, E. Fuchs and J. Kopp,High-frequency gravitational wave detection via optical frequency modulation,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) L061303 [2304.10579]

work page arXiv 2023
[18]

Valero, J.R.N

J.R. Valero, J.R.N. Madrid, D. Blas, A.D. Morcillo, I.G. Irastorza, B. Gimeno et al., High-frequency gravitational waves detection with the BabyIAXO haloscopes,Phys. Rev. D 111(2025) 043024 [2407.20482]. – 29 –

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures,

A. Mazumdar and G. White,Review of cosmic phase transitions: their significance and experimental signatures,Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019) 076901 [1811.01948]

work page arXiv 2019
[20]

Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys

E. Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 272

1984
[21]

Auclair et al

C.J. Hogan,Gravitational radiation from cosmological phase transitions,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.218(1986) 629. [34]LISA Cosmology Working Groupcollaboration,Cosmology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,Living Rev. Rel.26(2023) 5 [2204.05434]

work page arXiv 1986
[22]

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.135(2024) 104094 [2305.02357]

work page arXiv 2024
[23]

Is There a Hot Electroweak Phase Transition at $m_H\gsim m_W$?

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and M.E. Shaposhnikov,Is there a hot electroweak phase transition atm H ≳m W ?,Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996) 2887 [hep-ph/9605288]

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[24]

Laine and M

M. Laine and M. Meyer,Standard Model thermodynamics across the electroweak crossover, JCAP07(2015) 035 [1503.04935]

work page arXiv 2015
[25]

The QCD phase transition with physical-mass, chiral quarks

T. Bhattacharya et al.,QCD Phase Transition with Chiral Quarks and Physical Quark Masses,Phys. Rev. Lett.113(2014) 082001 [1402.5175]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[26]

Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars

A. Neronov and I. Vovk,Evidence for strong extragalactic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars,Science328(2010) 73 [1006.3504]. [40]MAGICcollaboration,A lower bound on intergalactic magnetic fields from time variability of 1ES 0229+200 from MAGIC and Fermi/LAT observations,Astron. Astrophys.670(2023) A145 [2210.03321]. [41]H.E.S.S., Fermi...

work page Pith review arXiv 2010
[27]

Zhang, W

A. Zhang, W. Chen and M. Errando,To appear,260X.XXXXX
[28]

Broderick, P

A.E. Broderick, P. Chang and C. Pfrommer,The Cosmological Impact of Luminous TeV Blazars I: Implications of Plasma Instabilities for the Intergalactic Magnetic Field and Extragalactic Gamma-Ray Background,Astrophys. J.752(2012) 22 [1106.5494]

work page arXiv 2012
[29]

Schlickeiser, S

R. Schlickeiser, S. Krakau and M. Supsar,Plasma Effects on Fast Pair Beams. II. Reactive versus Kinetic Instability of Parallel Electrostatic Waves,Astrophys. J.777(2013) 49 [1308.4594]

work page arXiv 2013
[30]

Sironi and D

L. Sironi and D. Giannios,Relativistic Pair Beams from TeV Blazars: A Source of Reprocessed GeV Emission rather than Intergalactic Heating,Astrophys. J.787(2014) 49 [1312.4538]

work page arXiv 2014
[31]

Rafighi, S

I. Rafighi, S. Vafin, M. Pohl and J. Niemiec,Plasma effects on relativistic pair beams from TeV blazars: PIC simulations and analytical predictions,Astron. Astrophys.607(2017) A112 [1708.07797]

work page arXiv 2017
[32]

Perry and Y

R. Perry and Y. Lyubarsky,The role of resonant plasma instabilities in the evolution of blazar induced pair beams,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503(2021) 2215 [2102.03190]

work page arXiv 2021
[33]

Arrowsmith et al.,Suppression of pair beam instabilities in a laboratory analogue of blazar pair cascades,Proc

C.D. Arrowsmith et al.,Suppression of pair beam instabilities in a laboratory analogue of blazar pair cascades,Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.122(2025) e2513365122 [2509.09040]

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Kamada, F

K. Kamada, F. Uchida and J. Yokoyama,Baryon isocurvature constraints on the primordial hypermagnetic fields,JCAP04(2021) 034 [2012.14435]

work page arXiv 2021
[35]

Vachaspati,Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions,Phys

T. Vachaspati,Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions,Phys. Lett. B265(1991) 258. – 30 –

1991
[36]

Zhang, T

Y. Zhang, T. Vachaspati and F. Ferrer,Magnetic field production at a first-order electroweak phase transition,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 083006 [1902.02751]

work page arXiv 2019
[37]

Vachaspati and A

T. Vachaspati and A. Brandenburg,Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak symmetry breaking,Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 043541 [2412.00641]

work page arXiv 2025
[38]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, M. Lewicki, V. Vaskonen and A. Wickens,Intergalactic Magnetic Fields from First-Order Phase Transitions,JCAP09(2019) 019 [1907.04315]

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

Olea-Romacho,Primordial magnetogenesis in the two-Higgs-doublet model,Phys

M.O. Olea-Romacho,Primordial magnetogenesis in the two-Higgs-doublet model,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 015023 [2310.19948]

work page arXiv 2024
[40]

Sigl, A.V

G. Sigl, A.V. Olinto and K. Jedamzik,Primordial magnetic fields from cosmological first order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D55(1997) 4582 [astro-ph/9610201]

work page arXiv 1997
[41]

Tevzadze, L

A.G. Tevzadze, L. Kisslinger, A. Brandenburg and T. Kahniashvili,Magnetic Fields from QCD Phase Transitions,Astrophys. J.759(2012) 54 [1207.0751]

work page arXiv 2012
[42]

Balaji, M

S. Balaji, M. Fairbairn and M.O. Olea-Romacho,Magnetogenesis with gravitational waves and primordial black hole dark matter,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 075048 [2402.05179]

work page arXiv 2024
[43]

Primordial black holes and magnetic fields in conformal neutrino mass models

S. Balaji, J. Gon¸ calves, D. Marfatia, A.P. Morais and R. Pasechnik,Primordial black holes and magnetic fields in conformal neutrino mass models,JCAP10(2025) 064 [2505.08011]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[44]

Arteaga Tupia, A

M. Arteaga Tupia, A. Ghoshal and A. Strumia,Primordial magnetogenesis from a supercooled dynamical electroweak phase transition,JHEP10(2025) 135 [2506.16387]

work page arXiv 2025
[45]

Vachaspati,Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity,Phys

T. Vachaspati,Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 251302 [astro-ph/0101261]

work page arXiv 2001
[46]

C.J. Copi, F. Ferrer, T. Vachaspati and A. Achucarro,Helical Magnetic Fields from Sphaleron Decay and Baryogenesis,Phys. Rev. Lett.101(2008) 171302 [0801.3653]

work page arXiv 2008
[47]

Gravitational Radiation from First-Order Phase Transitions

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M.S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions,Phys. Rev. D49(1994) 2837 [astro-ph/9310044]

work page Pith review arXiv 1994
[48]

Brandenburg, K

A. Brandenburg, K. Enqvist and P. Olesen,Large scale magnetic fields from hydromagnetic turbulence in the very early universe,Phys. Rev. D54(1996) 1291 [astro-ph/9602031]

work page arXiv 1996
[49]

Christensson, M

M. Christensson, M. Hindmarsh and A. Brandenburg,Inverse cascade in decaying 3-D magnetohydrodynamic turbulence,Phys. Rev. E64(2001) 056405 [astro-ph/0011321]

work page arXiv 2001
[50]

Kahniashvili, A

T. Kahniashvili, A. Brandenburg, A.G. Tevzadze and B. Ratra,Numerical simulations of the decay of primordial magnetic turbulence,Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 123002 [1004.3084]

work page arXiv 2010
[51]

Brandenburg, T

A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, A. Roper Pol, A.G. Tevzadze and T. Vachaspati,Evolution of hydromagnetic turbulence from the electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 123528 [1711.03804]

work page arXiv 2017
[52]

Chu, J.B

Y.-Z. Chu, J.B. Dent and T. Vachaspati,Magnetic Helicity in Sphaleron Debris,Phys. Rev. D 83(2011) 123530 [1105.3744]

work page arXiv 2011
[53]

Kahniashvili, A.G

T. Kahniashvili, A.G. Tevzadze, A. Brandenburg and A. Neronov,Evolution of Primordial Magnetic Fields from Phase Transitions,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 083007 [1212.0596]

work page arXiv 2013
[54]

Forbes and A.R

M.M. Forbes and A.R. Zhitnitsky,Primordial galactic magnetic fields from domain walls at the QCD phase transition,Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 5268 [hep-ph/0004051]

work page arXiv 2000
[55]

Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh

A.D. Sakharov,Violation of CP Invariance, C asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe,Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.5(1967) 32

1967
[56]

Biermann and A

L. Biermann and A. Schl¨ uter,Cosmic radiation and cosmic magnetic fields. ii. origin of cosmic magnetic fields,Phys. Rev.82(1951) 863

1951
[57]

Alves Batista and A

R. Alves Batista and A. Saveliev,The Gamma-ray Window to Intergalactic Magnetism, Universe7(2021) 223 [2105.12020]. – 31 –

work page arXiv 2021
[58]

Dolag, M

K. Dolag, M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko and R. Tomas,Lower limit on the strength and filling factor of extragalactic magnetic fields,Astrophys. J. Lett.727(2011) L4 [1009.1782]

work page arXiv 2011
[59]

Meissner and H

K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,Conformal Symmetry and the Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B 648(2007) 312 [hep-th/0612165]

work page arXiv 2007
[60]

Coleman and E.J

S.R. Coleman and E.J. Weinberg,Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,Phys. Rev. D7(1973) 1888

1973
[61]

Ghoshal, N

A. Ghoshal, N. Okada and A. Paul,Radiative plateau inflation with conformal invariance: Dynamical generation of electroweak and seesaw scales,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 055024 [2203.00677]

work page arXiv 2022
[62]

Ghoshal, D

A. Ghoshal, D. Mukherjee and M. Rinaldi,Inflation and primordial gravitational waves in scale-invariant quadratic gravity with Higgs,JHEP05(2023) 023 [2205.06475]

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

Ghoshal, N

A. Ghoshal, N. Okada, A. Paul and D. Raut,Double inflation in classically conformal B-L model,JCAP10(2025) 091 [2405.10537]

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Super-cool Dark Matter,

T. Hambye, A. Strumia and D. Teresi,Super-cool Dark Matter,JHEP08(2018) 188 [1805.01473]

work page arXiv 2018
[65]

Barman and A

B. Barman and A. Ghoshal,Scale invariant FIMP miracle,JCAP03(2022) 003 [2109.03259]

work page arXiv 2022
[66]

Barman and A

B. Barman and A. Ghoshal,Probing pre-BBN era with scale invariant FIMP,JCAP10 (2022) 082 [2203.13269]

work page arXiv 2022
[67]

Bardeen,On naturalness in the standard model, inOntake Summer Institute on Particle Physics, 8, 1995

W.A. Bardeen,On naturalness in the standard model, inOntake Summer Institute on Particle Physics, 8, 1995

1995
[68]

Hempfling,The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model,Phys

R. Hempfling,The Next-to-minimal Coleman-Weinberg model,Phys. Lett. B379(1996) 153 [hep-ph/9604278]

work page arXiv 1996
[69]

Espinosa and M

J.R. Espinosa and M. Quiros,Novel Effects in Electroweak Breaking from a Hidden Sector, Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 076004 [hep-ph/0701145]

work page arXiv 2007
[70]

Chang, J.N

W.-F. Chang, J.N. Ng and J.M.S. Wu,Shadow Higgs from a scale-invariant hidden U(1)(s) model,Phys. Rev. D75(2007) 115016 [hep-ph/0701254]

work page arXiv 2007
[71]

R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze and R.R. Volkas,Electroweak Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of broken scale invariance,Phys. Lett. B655(2007) 156 [0704.1165]

work page arXiv 2007
[72]

R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K.L. McDonald and R.R. Volkas,Neutrino mass in radiatively-broken scale-invariant models,Phys. Rev. D76(2007) 075014 [0706.1829]

work page arXiv 2007
[73]

R. Foot, A. Kobakhidze, K.L. McDonald and R.R. Volkas,A Solution to the hierarchy problem from an almost decoupled hidden sector within a classically scale invariant theory, Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 035006 [0709.2750]

work page arXiv 2008
[74]

Meissner and H

K.A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,Neutrinos, Axions and Conformal Symmetry,Eur. Phys. J. C 57(2008) 493 [0803.2814]

work page arXiv 2008
[75]

S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa,Classically conformalB − L extended Standard Model,Phys. Lett. B676(2009) 81 [0902.4050]

work page arXiv 2009
[76]

S. Iso, N. Okada and Y. Orikasa,The minimal B-L model naturally realized at TeV scale, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 115007 [0909.0128]

work page arXiv 2009
[77]

Witten,Cosmological Consequences of a Light Higgs Boson,Nucl

E. Witten,Cosmological Consequences of a Light Higgs Boson,Nucl. Phys. B177(1981) 477

1981
[78]

Jinno and M

R. Jinno and M. Takimoto,Probing a classically conformal B-L model with gravitational waves,Phys. Rev. D95(2017) 015020 [1604.05035]

work page arXiv 2017
[79]

Delle Rose, G

L. Delle Rose, G. Panico, M. Redi and A. Tesi,Gravitational Waves from Supercool Axions, JHEP04(2020) 025 [1912.06139]. – 32 –

work page arXiv 2020
[80]

Von Harling, A

B. Von Harling, A. Pomarol, O. Pujol` as and F. Rompineve,Peccei-Quinn Phase Transition at LIGO,JHEP04(2020) 195 [1912.07587]

work page arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.