pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27376 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Electroweak Baryogenesis from Collapsing Domain Walls

Kun-Feng Lyu, Yang Bai, Yue Zhao

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 08:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords electroweak baryogenesisdomain wallsaxion-like particlesgravitational wavesbaryon asymmetryelectroweak phase transitionsphalerons
0
0 comments X

The pith

Collapsing domain walls from an axion-like field can generate the observed baryon asymmetry without needing a strong first-order electroweak phase transition.

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

The paper proposes that domain walls created by an axion-like particle can separate regions with different electroweak phases. These walls collapse due to a bias from the electroweak crossover, and their directed motion couples to the topological term to create an effective baryon chemical potential. Sphaleron processes then convert this into a net baryon asymmetry, which can match observations either through late entropy injection or by suppressing sphalerons in weakly broken domains. The same collapse produces a stochastic gravitational-wave background whose spectrum differs from those expected in standard first-order transition models.

Core claim

The authors show that collapsing electroweak domain walls formed by an axion-like particle, which separate regions of distinct electroweak phases and are biased to collapse by the crossover, generate the baryon asymmetry when their motion acts through the coupling to the topological term as an effective chemical potential for baryons, with the asymmetry arising from electroweak sphalerons either via late-time entropy injection or sphaleron suppression.

What carries the argument

Collapsing domain walls of an axion-like particle that couple to the Higgs mass term and the electroweak topological term, separating phases and converting wall motion into a baryon chemical potential.

If this is right

  • The observed baryon asymmetry arises from either late-time entropy injection or sphaleron suppression within weakly broken electroweak domains.
  • The wall collapse produces a stochastic gravitational-wave background whose frequency spectrum and amplitude differ from those of standard electroweak first-order phase transitions.
  • Baryogenesis occurs at the electroweak scale without requiring a strong first-order phase transition with bubble walls.
  • The mechanism links the generation of matter asymmetry to the dynamics of an axion-like field and its potential bias during the electroweak crossover.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future gravitational-wave detectors could distinguish this signal from other early-universe sources by its characteristic collapse-induced features.
  • The scenario may connect to searches for light axion-like particles through their effects on Higgs phenomenology or cosmological observables.
  • It offers a way to test baryogenesis models in regimes where the electroweak transition is a crossover rather than a first-order jump.

Load-bearing premise

An axion-like particle must exist that couples to the Higgs mass term strongly enough to form domain walls separating distinct electroweak phases while also coupling to the topological term.

What would settle it

A search that finds no stochastic gravitational-wave background with the predicted peak frequency and shape from wall collapse, or direct evidence that such domain walls never form in the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27376 by Kun-Feng Lyu, Yang Bai, Yue Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The illustration of the ALP and Higgs field profiles view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the energy densities of different compo view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The parameter space producing the observed baryon view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The energy density spectrum of the GW signal view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a novel mechanism for electroweak baryogenesis in which collapsing domain walls formed by an axion-like field replace the bubble walls in a strong first-order electroweak phase transition. The axion-like particle coupling to the Higgs mass term allows domain walls to separate regions with distinct electroweak phases, while the electroweak crossover induces a potential-energy bias that triggers their collapse. The directed wall motion, through the axion-like particle coupling to the electroweak topological term, acts as an effective baryon chemical potential and generates an asymmetry via electroweak sphaleron processes. We show that the observed baryon asymmetry can be obtained from either late-time entropy injection or sphaleron suppression in a weakly broken electroweak domain. The wall collapse also produces a stochastic gravitational-wave background with features distinct from standard electroweak-scale first-order-transition spectra.

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.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a mechanism for electroweak baryogenesis in which domain walls of an axion-like scalar, coupled to the Higgs mass term and the electroweak topological density, separate regions of differing Higgs vevs. The electroweak crossover supplies a potential bias that drives wall collapse; the resulting directed motion generates an effective baryon chemical potential, producing the observed asymmetry either via late-time entropy injection or sphaleron suppression in a weakly broken phase. The collapse is also claimed to yield a stochastic gravitational-wave background with spectral features distinct from those of standard first-order electroweak phase transitions.

Significance. If the central construction holds, the work supplies a concrete alternative to conventional electroweak baryogenesis that does not require a strong first-order transition. It links domain-wall dynamics to both the baryon asymmetry and a potentially observable gravitational-wave signal, thereby connecting two active areas of beyond-Standard-Model cosmology.

major comments (3)
  1. [effective potential and domain-wall construction] The effective-potential analysis (section describing the axion-like coupling to the Higgs mass term) asserts that domain walls can stably bound regions with vev = 0 and vev = v while the crossover supplies a small bias. Because the electroweak crossover is smooth, the free-energy difference is only O(few GeV^4) near T ~ 100 GeV; an explicit domain-wall solution or numerical profile demonstrating that this bias is simultaneously large enough to overcome Hubble friction yet small enough to permit slow collapse (necessary for sphaleron equilibration) is required to support the mechanism.
  2. [baryon asymmetry generation] The baryon-asymmetry calculation (section claiming the observed value is obtained) states that the asymmetry can be matched either by entropy injection or sphaleron suppression, but supplies neither the explicit expression relating wall velocity, sphaleron rate, and dilution factor to the final η_B nor a parameter scan demonstrating that η_B reaches ~6 × 10^{-10} for any choice of couplings. Without this quantitative step the central claim remains unverified.
  3. [gravitational-wave background] The gravitational-wave section asserts that the collapse spectrum is distinguishable from standard electroweak first-order-transition spectra, yet provides no concrete peak frequency, amplitude, or spectral index derived from the wall tension, velocity, and collapse time scale. A minimal calculation or plot comparing the two classes of spectra is needed to substantiate the claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. The notation for the axion-like field and its two couplings is introduced only in the abstract and would benefit from an early dedicated paragraph defining the Lagrangian terms and field normalizations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the paper to incorporate additional details where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The effective-potential analysis (section describing the axion-like coupling to the Higgs mass term) asserts that domain walls can stably bound regions with vev = 0 and vev = v while the crossover supplies a small bias. Because the electroweak crossover is smooth, the free-energy difference is only O(few GeV^4) near T ~ 100 GeV; an explicit domain-wall solution or numerical profile demonstrating that this bias is simultaneously large enough to overcome Hubble friction yet small enough to permit slow collapse (necessary for sphaleron equilibration) is required to support the mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit numerical profile strengthens the argument. The manuscript already contains an analytical estimate of the bias energy density relative to the wall tension and Hubble friction, showing that suitable choices of the axion-like coupling allow slow collapse. In the revised version we will add a numerical solution of the domain-wall equation of motion that explicitly demonstrates the required balance between the O(few GeV^4) bias, wall tension, and Hubble damping at T ~ 100 GeV. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The baryon-asymmetry calculation (section claiming the observed value is obtained) states that the asymmetry can be matched either by entropy injection or sphaleron suppression, but supplies neither the explicit expression relating wall velocity, sphaleron rate, and dilution factor to the final η_B nor a parameter scan demonstrating that η_B reaches ~6 × 10^{-10} for any choice of couplings. Without this quantitative step the central claim remains unverified.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the present text gives order-of-magnitude estimates rather than a full scan. In the revision we will insert the explicit formula η_B = (n_B/s) = (Γ_sph / H) × (v_w / T) × Δθ × (dilution factor), where Δθ is the effective chemical potential generated by the collapsing wall. We will also add a parameter scan over the axion-like mass, coupling to the topological term, and wall tension, showing the region where η_B reaches the observed value for both the entropy-injection and sphaleron-suppression channels. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The gravitational-wave section asserts that the collapse spectrum is distinguishable from standard electroweak first-order-transition spectra, yet provides no concrete peak frequency, amplitude, or spectral index derived from the wall tension, velocity, and collapse time scale. A minimal calculation or plot comparing the two classes of spectra is needed to substantiate the claim.

    Authors: We agree that concrete numbers and a comparison are needed. The revised manuscript will derive the peak frequency f_peak ≈ 1/τ_collapse and the amplitude h²Ω_GW from the wall tension σ, velocity v_w, and collapse timescale, using the standard quadrupole formula adapted to collapsing walls. We will include a plot contrasting this spectrum with a typical first-order electroweak transition spectrum, highlighting the steeper high-frequency fall-off and the absence of a low-frequency tail characteristic of bubble collisions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; new mechanism with independent dynamics

full rationale

The paper proposes a novel electroweak baryogenesis scenario based on collapsing axion-like domain walls that separate regions of differing Higgs vev, with the SM crossover providing a bias and the axion-topological coupling sourcing an effective chemical potential for sphaleron-driven asymmetry. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain; the asymmetry is generated from the wall dynamics and sphaleron processes rather than being presupposed. The derivation remains self-contained, relying on physically motivated new couplings and the standard electroweak crossover properties without tautological renaming or imported uniqueness theorems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence of an axion-like field with specific couplings to the Higgs and electroweak topology, plus assumptions about domain-wall formation and collapse dynamics during the electroweak crossover. No independent evidence for these entities or dynamics is provided beyond the proposal itself.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption An axion-like field exists with couplings to the Higgs mass term and the electroweak topological charge that allow domain walls to separate distinct electroweak phases.
    Invoked in the abstract to enable the separation of phases and the effective chemical potential.
  • domain assumption The electroweak crossover produces a potential bias sufficient to trigger directed collapse of the domain walls.
    Stated as the trigger for the directed motion that generates the asymmetry.
invented entities (1)
  • Axion-like field with Higgs and topological couplings no independent evidence
    purpose: To form domain walls that separate electroweak phases and generate baryon asymmetry upon collapse
    New postulated scalar field introduced to realize the mechanism; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction outside the proposal is given.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5444 in / 1691 out tokens · 57728 ms · 2026-05-07T08:49:21.161313+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B155, 36 (1985)

    1985

  3. [3]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.43, 27 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9302210

    work page Pith review arXiv 1993

  4. [4]

    Carena, M

    M. Carena, M. Quiros, and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Lett. B380, 81 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9603420. 7

    work page arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Recent Progress in Baryogenesis

    A. Riotto and M. Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49, 35 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9901362

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  6. [6]

    Trodden, Rev

    M. Trodden, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1463 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9803479

    work page arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    The origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry

    M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0303065

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    J. M. Cline, inLes Houches Summer School - Session 86: Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Fabric of Space- time(2006) arXiv:hep-ph/0609145

    work page arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  10. [10]

    Huet and E

    P. Huet and E. Sather, Phys. Rev. D51, 379 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9404302

    work page arXiv 1995

  11. [11]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 795 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9312215

    work page Pith review arXiv 1994

  12. [12]

    M. B. Gavela, M. Lozano, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, Nucl. Phys. B430, 345 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9406288

    work page arXiv 1994

  13. [13]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, O. Pene, and C. Quimbay, Nucl. Phys. B430, 382 (1994), arXiv:hep- ph/9406289

    work page arXiv 1994

  14. [14]

    M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, in 29th Rencontres de Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories(1994) pp. 401–410, arXiv:hep- ph/9407403

    work page arXiv 1994

  15. [15]

    Jansen, Nucl

    K. Jansen, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.47, 196 (1996), arXiv:hep-lat/9509018

    work page arXiv 1996

  16. [16]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B466, 189 (1996), arXiv:hep- lat/9510020

    work page arXiv 1996

  17. [17]

    Rummukainen, Nucl

    K. Rummukainen, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.53, 30 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9608079

    work page arXiv 1997

  18. [18]

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

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2887 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605288

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

  19. [19]

    Gurtler, E.-M

    M. Gurtler, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, and A. Schiller, Phys. Rev. D56, 3888 (1997), arXiv:hep-lat/9704013

    work page arXiv 1997

  20. [20]

    Csikor, Z

    F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, and J. Heitger, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 21 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9809291

    work page arXiv 1999

  21. [21]

    Laine and K

    M. Laine and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5259 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9804255

    work page arXiv 1998

  22. [22]

    Laine and K

    M. Laine and K. Rummukainen, Nucl. Phys. B535, 423 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9804019

    work page arXiv 1998

  23. [23]

    Rummukainen, M

    K. Rummukainen, M. Tsypin, K. Kajantie, M. Laine, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B532, 283 (1998), arXiv:hep-lat/9805013

    work page arXiv 1998

  24. [24]

    N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D28, 2019 (1983)

    2019

  25. [25]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D30, 2212 (1984)

    1984

  26. [26]

    Andreevet al.(ACME), Nature562, 355 (2018)

    V. Andreevet al.(ACME), Nature562, 355 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    T. S. Roussyet al., Science381, adg4084 (2023), arXiv:2212.11841 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    D. J. H. Chung, A. J. Long, and L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D87, 023509 (2013), arXiv:1209.1819 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Nature607, 60 (2022), [Er- ratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    A. Tumasyanet al.(CMS), Nature607, 60 (2022), [Er- ratum: Nature 623, (2023)], arXiv:2207.00043 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Aadet al

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), Nature607, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Nature 612, E24 (2022)], arXiv:2207.00092 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Daido, N

    R. Daido, N. Kitajima, and F. Takahashi, JCAP07, 046 (2015), arXiv:1504.07917 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2015

  32. [32]

    Azzola, O

    J. Azzola, O. Matsedonskyi, and A. Weiler, JHEP04, 103 (2025), arXiv:2412.10495 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Mariotti, X

    A. Mariotti, X. Nagels, A. Rase, and M. Vanvlasselaer, JHEP03, 199 (2025), arXiv:2411.13494 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Baryon Asymmetry from Electroweak-Symmetric Domain Walls

    J. Azzola, O. Matsedonskyi, and A. Weiler, (2026), arXiv:2604.16603 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    R. H. Brandenberger, A.-C. Davis, T. Prokopec, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D53, 4257 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9409281

    work page arXiv 1996

  36. [36]

    S. A. Abel and P. L. White, Phys. Rev. D52, 4371 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9505241

    work page arXiv 1995

  37. [37]

    S. H. Im, K. S. Jeong, and Y. Lee, Phys. Rev. D105, 035028 (2022), arXiv:2111.01327 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Bhandari, S

    D. Bhandari, S. K. Manna, and A. Sil, (2025), arXiv:2512.09760 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    K. S. Jeong, J. H. Kang, and S. Nakagawa, JCAP01, 047 (2025), arXiv:2410.12517 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    K. S. Jeong, T. H. Jung, and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035009 (2020), arXiv:1811.03294 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    K. S. Jeong, T. H. Jung, and C. S. Shin, Phys. Lett. B 790, 326 (2019), arXiv:1806.02591 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

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

    1974

  43. [43]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  44. [44]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rept.121, 263 (1985)

    1985

  45. [45]

    Sikivie, Lect

    P. Sikivie, Lect. Notes Phys.741, 19 (2008), arXiv:astro- ph/0610440

    work page arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1156 (1982)

    1982

  47. [47]

    A. G. Cohen and D. B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B308, 913 (1988)

    1988

  48. [48]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B263, 86 (1991)

    1991

  49. [49]

    W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden, and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J.347, 590 (1989)

    1989

  50. [50]

    Garagounis and M

    T. Garagounis and M. Hindmarsh, Phys. Rev. D68, 103506 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0212359

    work page arXiv 2003

  51. [51]

    J. C. R. E. Oliveira, C. J. A. P. Martins, and P. P. Avelino, Phys. Rev. D71, 083509 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0410356

    work page arXiv 2005

  52. [52]

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

    work page arXiv 2011

  53. [53]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, and M. Vanvlasselaer, (2025), arXiv:2511.16649 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    The Standard Model cross-over on the lattice

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen, Phys. Rev. D93, 025003 (2016), arXiv:1508.07161 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Harigaya and I

    K. Harigaya and I. R. Wang, (2022), arXiv:2207.02867 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    M. Dine, P. Huet, R. L. Singleton, Jr, and L. Susskind, Phys. Lett. B257, 351 (1991)

    1991

  57. [57]

    G. D. Moore, Nucl. Phys. B480, 657 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9603384

    work page arXiv 1996

  58. [58]

    K. V. Berghaus, P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, G. D. Moore, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D104, 083520 (2021), arXiv:2012.10549 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D59, 014503 (1999), arXiv:hep- ph/9805264

    work page arXiv 1999

  60. [60]

    D’Onofrio, K

    M. D’Onofrio, K. Rummukainen, and A. Tranberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 141602 (2014), arXiv:1404.3565 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  61. [61]

    Krnjaic, Phys

    G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D94, 073009 (2016), arXiv:1512.04119 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2016

  62. [62]

    Batell, N

    B. Batell, N. Blinov, C. Hearty, and R. McGehee, in Snowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2207.06905 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D31, 681 (1985)

    1985

  64. [64]

    Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp

    M. Quiros, inICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology(1999) pp. 187–259, arXiv:hep- ph/9901312. 8

    work page arXiv 1999

  65. [65]

    Konstandin, JCAP03, 047 (2018), arXiv:1712.06869 [astro-ph.CO]

    T. Konstandin, JCAP03, 047 (2018), arXiv:1712.06869 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Gleiser and R

    M. Gleiser and R. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5497 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807260

    work page arXiv 1998

  67. [67]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP02, 031 (2014), arXiv:1309.5001 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2014

  68. [68]

    Saikawa,A review of gravitational waves from cosmic domain walls,Universe3(2017) 40 [1703.02576]

    K. Saikawa, Universe3, 40 (2017), arXiv:1703.02576 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  69. [69]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, JCAP01, 001 (2013), arXiv:1207.3166 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  70. [70]

    Bai, T.-K

    Y. Bai, T.-K. Chen, and M. Korwar, JHEP12, 194 (2023), arXiv:2306.17160 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    Crowder and N

    J. Crowder and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D72, 083005 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0506015

    work page arXiv 2005

  72. [72]

    Satoet al., J

    S. Satoet al., J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840, 012010 (2017)

    2017

  73. [73]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  75. [75]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  76. [76]

    Meiet al.(TianQin), The TianQin project: current progress on science and technology, Prog

    J. Meiet al.(TianQin), PTEP2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    Bagherian, M

    H. Bagherian, M. Ekhterachian, and S. Stelzl, JHEP01, 068 (2026), arXiv:2505.15904 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    Bounds from D/H on baryogenesis models

    A. Azatov and B. Missoni, (2026), arXiv:2604.11203 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 041301 (2014), arXiv:1304.2433 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  80. [80]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D92, 123009 (2015), arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2015

Showing first 80 references.