arxiv: 2605.15197 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Primordial Black Hole from Tensor-induced Density Fluctuation: First-order Phase Transitions and Domain Walls

Utkarsh Kumar , Anish Ghoshal

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 02:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO

keywords primordial black holesfirst-order phase transitionsdomain wallstensor perturbationsgravitational wavesdark mattercurvature perturbationsearly universe cosmology

0 comments

The pith

First-order tensor perturbations from phase transitions and domain walls induce second-order curvature that forms primordial black holes able to comprise all dark matter.

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

The paper shows that tensor gravitational waves produced at first order during a first-order phase transition, either by bubble collisions and sound waves or by domain wall annihilation, generate scalar curvature perturbations at second order. These induced fluctuations can grow large enough to collapse into primordial black holes whose mass and abundance depend on the transition parameters. The resulting black hole density then supplies model-independent limits on those parameters once existing black hole bounds are imposed. For ranges of transition temperature, rate, and strength, the black holes can account for the entire dark matter density while producing gravitational wave backgrounds whose peak lies inside the sensitivity windows of planned detectors.

Core claim

We present a novel gauge-invariant and minimal formation mechanism of primordial black holes in first-order phase transitions and domain walls separately. This is based on the first-order tensor perturbations, generated during FOPT from bubble collisions and sound waves, and from DW annihilation, sourcing curvature at second-order in perturbation theory. PBH formation implies model-independent constraints on FOPT parameters (β/H, α, T⋆) and on DW parameters (α_ann, V_bias, σ) from existing PBH constraints. Asteroid mass PBHs can become the entire dark matter for T⋆ in (4×10², 10⁴) GeV with β/H ≃ 6 and α > O(1), or for σ^{1/3} in [10⁶, 10⁸] TeV and V_bias^{1/4} in [10⁷, 10^{10}] MeV. The semi

What carries the argument

Second-order scalar curvature perturbations induced by first-order tensor modes sourced by bubble collisions, sound waves, or domain wall annihilation.

If this is right

Asteroid-mass PBHs formed this way can constitute all dark matter when the transition temperature lies between 400 GeV and 10,000 GeV for β/H around 6 and large transition strength.
The same parameters produce a gravitational wave spectrum peaking near 10^{-8} in energy density at frequencies between 10^{-5} and 10^{-2} Hz, inside LISA and SKA reach.
For domain walls the corresponding window is σ^{1/3} between 10^6 and 10^8 TeV and bias scale between 10^7 and 10^{10} MeV, yielding a wave peak near 10^{-9} at frequencies 4×10^{-4} to 10^{-1} Hz.
Existing PBH constraints translate directly into bounds on the phase-transition parameters β/H, α, T⋆ and the domain-wall parameters α_ann, V_bias, σ.
Semi-analytical formulae link the induced density spectrum, black-hole mass, and dark-matter fraction to the underlying FOPT or DW parameters, thereby constraining their particle-physics origins.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Any sufficiently strong first-order transition or domain-wall network in the early universe could produce a population of primordial black holes without extra scalar-field tuning.
Non-observation of the predicted gravitational waves would exclude the parameter regions where this channel supplies all dark matter.
The same tensor-to-curvature conversion could be examined for other early-universe tensor sources such as cosmic strings to test whether they likewise generate observable black-hole fractions.
The mechanism supplies a direct observational bridge between hidden-sector phase transitions and both dark-matter abundance and gravitational-wave backgrounds.

Load-bearing premise

The second-order curvature perturbations induced by the first-order tensors reach amplitudes large enough to exceed the threshold for PBH collapse without significant backreaction or higher-order corrections.

What would settle it

A calculation or simulation showing that the induced density contrast remains below the collapse threshold for the stated ranges of β/H, α, and T⋆, or the absence of the predicted gravitational wave peak in LISA data combined with tight PBH abundance limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15197 by Anish Ghoshal, Utkarsh Kumar.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: In Fig. 7 we present the constraints on FOPT parameters for which PBHs are expected to be produced in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: We also compared with PBH formation from first-order curvature perturbation and found the second-order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We present a novel \textit{gauge-invariant and minimal} formation mechanism of primordial black holes (PBHs) in first-order phase transition (FOPT) and domain walls (DW) separately. This is based on the first-order tensor perturbations, generated during FOPT from bubble collisions \& sound waves, and from DW annihilation, sourcing curvature, at second-order in perturbation theory. We show that the PBH formation implies \textit{model-independent constraints} on FOPT parameters ($\beta/H, \alpha, T_{\star}$ ) and on DW parameters, ($\alpha_{\rm ann}, V_{\rm bias}, \sigma$), from existing PBH constraints. We find that asteroid mass PBHs can become the entire dark matter (DM) of the Universe, for $T_{\star} \in (4 \times 10^{2}, 10^{4})$ GeV, for $\beta/H \simeq 6$, involving $\alpha >\mathcal{O}(1)$ values. The corresponding FOPT Gravitational Waves (GW) amplitude will have its characteristic peak at $\Omega_{\rm GW}^{\rm p} h^2$ $\sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ between frequencies $f_{\rm p} \in ({10^{-5},10^{-2}})$ Hz which is within the reach in LISA and SKA detectors. PBH as entire DM is possible for $\sigma^{1/3} \in [10^{6}, 10^{8}]$ TeV, for $V_{\rm bias}^{1/4} \in [10^7, 10^{10}]$ MeV with the corresponding GW amplitude peak from DW annihilation $\Omega_{\rm GW}^{\rm p} h^2$ $\sim \mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ (for $\alpha_{\rm ann} \sim 10^{-2}$) and peak frequencies between $f_{\rm p} \in (4 \times {10^{-4},10^{-1}})$ Hz with ($T_{\rm ann} \in 4.5 \times [10^3, 10^6] $) GeV within the reach in LISA and ET detectors. We also provide semi-analytical formulae for the tensor-induced density spectrum, $P_{\delta^{(2)}}$, $M_{\rm PBH}$ and $f_{\rm PBH}$, relating them in terms of FOPT and DW parameters which in turn, are related to viable particle physics origin of such FOPT and DW, and therefore, constrain such microphysics, either in the visible, or in dark sector models.

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 sketches a tensor-induced PBH channel from FOPT and DW but leaves the key amplitude verification undone.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that the authors claim a new channel for primordial black hole formation where first-order tensor perturbations from bubble collisions in first-order phase transitions or from domain wall annihilation source second-order curvature perturbations that then collapse into PBHs. They provide formulas that tie the FOPT parameters beta/H, alpha, and T_star to the PBH abundance and to gravitational wave signals in the LISA range, and similarly for domain wall parameters. What works here is the direct link they draw between these early-universe processes and both dark matter and observable waves. The semi-analytical expressions for P_delta^(2), M_PBH, and f_PBH look like they could be handy for model builders looking to constrain visible or dark sector physics. The ranges they find for asteroid-mass PBHs making up all DM, with beta/H around 6 and alpha greater than order one, do line up with GW peaks that future detectors could see. The weak point is that the paper does not include the explicit steps showing that the induced density fluctuations actually exceed the collapse threshold for those parameter choices. The formulas are stated, but without the kernel details or checks for backreaction and gauge issues, it's possible the amplitude falls short. The way the parameters are picked to achieve f_PBH equals one also raises the question of how natural this is versus how much tuning is involved. This is the kind of paper that would interest people studying gravitational waves from phase transitions or primordial black holes as dark matter candidates. Someone already familiar with second-order perturbation theory in cosmology would find the application interesting and could build on the formulas. I would recommend sending it to peer review so the calculation of the induced spectrum can be properly vetted.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a novel gauge-invariant mechanism for primordial black hole (PBH) formation in which first-order tensor perturbations generated during first-order phase transitions (FOPT) from bubble collisions and sound waves, and from domain wall (DW) annihilation, source second-order scalar curvature perturbations. It supplies semi-analytical formulae relating the induced density power spectrum P_δ^(2), PBH mass M_PBH and abundance f_PBH to FOPT parameters (β/H, α, T_*) and DW parameters (α_ann, V_bias, σ), and concludes that asteroid-mass PBHs can comprise all dark matter for T_* in (4×10^2, 10^4) GeV with β/H ≃ 6 and α > O(1), together with associated gravitational-wave signals detectable by LISA, SKA and ET.

Significance. If the central derivation is sound, the work would establish a minimal, gauge-invariant channel connecting FOPTs and DWs to PBH dark matter and observable GWs, thereby furnishing model-independent constraints on microphysical parameters in visible or dark-sector models. The provision of semi-analytical formulae linking microphysics to P_δ^(2), M_PBH and f_PBH would be a useful contribution for future studies.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and results section] Abstract and the section presenting the semi-analytical formulae: the expressions for P_δ^(2), M_PBH and f_PBH are stated without derivation steps, explicit kernel integration, error estimates or validation against known limits of second-order tensor-to-scalar sourcing; second-order perturbation theory contains well-known subtleties (gauge invariance, transfer functions, back-reaction) that are not addressed.
[Results and discussion of constraints] The parameter windows β/H ≃ 6, α > O(1), T_* ~ 10^3 GeV (and the analogous DW ranges) are selected so that f_PBH = 1 for asteroid-mass PBHs; this choice appears tuned to reproduce the target abundance rather than derived independently from the microphysical parameters, undermining the claim of model-independent constraints.
[PBH formation section] The central claim that the induced δ^(2) exceeds the collapse threshold δ_c ≈ 0.45–0.67 is not supported by explicit calculation of the peak amplitude of P_δ^(2) for the benchmark values; without this step it remains possible that the variance stays below threshold once gauge-invariant variables and transfer functions are included.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Notation for peak quantities (Ω_GW^p h^2, f_p) should be defined consistently and the superscript 'p' clarified as 'peak'.
[Introduction] Add explicit references to prior literature on second-order tensor-induced curvature perturbations and PBH formation to situate the novelty claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We agree that additional details are needed to strengthen the presentation of the derivations and calculations. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the corresponding revisions in the next version of the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract and results section] Abstract and the section presenting the semi-analytical formulae: the expressions for P_δ^(2), M_PBH and f_PBH are stated without derivation steps, explicit kernel integration, error estimates or validation against known limits of second-order tensor-to-scalar sourcing; second-order perturbation theory contains well-known subtleties (gauge invariance, transfer functions, back-reaction) that are not addressed.

Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient explicit steps for the kernel integration or validation. In the revised version we will add a dedicated appendix containing the full second-order kernel integration for the tensor-to-scalar sourcing, error estimates on the semi-analytical formulae, and direct comparisons to established limits (e.g., radiation-era results from the literature). We will also include a brief discussion of the gauge-invariant variables employed and the transfer functions used, thereby addressing the noted subtleties of second-order perturbation theory. revision: yes
Referee: [Results and discussion of constraints] The parameter windows β/H ≃ 6, α > O(1), T_* ~ 10^3 GeV (and the analogous DW ranges) are selected so that f_PBH = 1 for asteroid-mass PBHs; this choice appears tuned to reproduce the target abundance rather than derived independently from the microphysical parameters, undermining the claim of model-independent constraints.

Authors: The quoted ranges are not arbitrary but follow from requiring the induced density variance to reach the collapse threshold for the given FOPT and DW microphysical parameters; this is the physical condition that defines viable parameter space for PBH formation. Nevertheless, we accept that the presentation could be misread as tuning. In the revision we will derive the windows more explicitly from the underlying parameters, show the mapping from microphysics to f_PBH, and clarify that the model-independent constraints arise from the existing PBH abundance limits applied to this mechanism. revision: partial
Referee: [PBH formation section] The central claim that the induced δ^(2) exceeds the collapse threshold δ_c ≈ 0.45–0.67 is not supported by explicit calculation of the peak amplitude of P_δ^(2) for the benchmark values; without this step it remains possible that the variance stays below threshold once gauge-invariant variables and transfer functions are included.

Authors: We will add explicit numerical evaluations of the peak amplitude of P_δ^(2) for the benchmark points in the revised manuscript. These calculations will incorporate the gauge-invariant formulation and transfer functions, demonstrating that the variance exceeds δ_c for the quoted parameter choices. The new figures and accompanying text will make this step transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation maps parameters to abundance via standard second-order kernels

full rationale

The paper derives semi-analytical expressions for the tensor-induced density power spectrum P_δ^(2) from first-order tensor modes (bubble collisions/sound waves or DW annihilation) using established second-order perturbation theory, then applies the conventional PBH collapse threshold δ_c to obtain M_PBH and f_PBH as explicit functions of the input parameters (β/H, α, T_*, α_ann, V_bias, σ). The quoted windows (e.g., β/H ≃ 6, T_* ∈ [4×10^2, 10^4] GeV) are simply the values at which the computed f_PBH reaches order unity for asteroid-mass PBHs; this is a direct forward evaluation of the formulae rather than a fit or redefinition. No equation reduces the output abundance to the input parameters by construction, no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked for the kernel or threshold, and the central claim rests on gauge-invariant perturbation theory that is independent of the target f_PBH = 1 result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard second-order cosmological perturbation theory and the usual PBH formation threshold; the listed FOPT and DW parameters are treated as inputs that are then constrained by requiring viable PBH dark matter.

free parameters (3)

β/H = 6
Duration parameter of the phase transition; value ≈6 is required for asteroid-mass PBHs to comprise all DM.
α = >O(1)
Transition strength; values >O(1) needed for sufficient tensor amplitude.
T⋆ = 4e2 to 1e4 GeV
Transition temperature; narrow window 4×10²–10⁴ GeV yields asteroid-mass PBHs.

axioms (2)

standard math First-order tensor perturbations source second-order scalar curvature perturbations via standard cosmological perturbation theory
Invoked to obtain P_δ^(2) from tensor modes generated by bubble collisions and sound waves.
domain assumption Standard spherical-collapse threshold for PBH formation applies to the induced density fluctuations
Used to convert the second-order density spectrum into PBH mass and abundance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5799 in / 1653 out tokens · 54594 ms · 2026-05-15T02:49:45.825382+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

δ^(2) = −π/12 ∑ ∫ ϵ_σ_ij ϵ_σ'_ij (q/k |k−q|/k)^(−1/2) I(x,q,|k−q|) χ_σ χ_σ' (Eq. 14); P_δ^(2) = 1/2 ∫ dv du f(u,v) I²(u,v) P_χini(ku) P_χini(kv) (Eq. 16)
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

f_PBH(M_PBH) expressed via β(M_H) integral over Gaussian P(δ_nl) with δ_th = 0.51 and critical-collapse scaling M_PBH = K M_H (δ − δ_th)^γ

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

298 extracted references · 298 canonical work pages · 114 internal anchors

[1]

First-order Phase Transition The first-orderP ζ generated due to FOPT, following [288]13,P ζ ∝k 3 on super-horizon scales, can be approximated asP ζ as Pζ(k) =A α 1 +α 2 (k/kmax)3(β/Hn)−3 [a+ (k/k max)2(β/Hn)−2]3 × 1 (b+β/H n)2 Θ(kmax −k),(C1) where Θ is the heaviside step function withA= 0.0038,a= 0.043, andb= 1.77. The peak wave numberk max and the rehe...

work page
[2]

Domain Walls The primary power spectrum arising due to domain walls can be expressed as [231, 291]: Pϕ(k) = B2 2π2k8 = kB k 8 ,(C3) with B= 2 3 2 π 5 2 a2 i G2σ2 3η2 i .(C4) with i representing some initial time kB ≃ Gσ η0 1/2 .(C5) This indicates that the power spectrum scales ask −8, emphasizing it becomes dominant at larger scales. By employing the typ...

work page
[3]

First-order Phase Transition Bubbles (FOPT) During cosmogical strong FOPT bubble collide and lead to GW formation from collission as well as from the sound wabes in the plasma outside the bubbles. A theoretically attractive and very minimal model invlving such 28 striog FOPT along with generation of neutrino masses for the SM via type-I seesaw, introduces...

work page
[4]

One may consider a minimal model of Dirac neutrino seesaw mass generation which also accommodates Dirac leptogenesis, 29 following Ref

Domain Walls (DW) Any discrete symmetry breaking, for instanceZ 2, would lead to the formation of DW in early universe. One may consider a minimal model of Dirac neutrino seesaw mass generation which also accommodates Dirac leptogenesis, 29 following Ref. [294], the standard model (SM) particle content is augmented by three copies of vector-like neutral s...

work page 2023
[5]

A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B245, 561 (1990)

work page 1990
[6]

Baryogenesis in the Two-Higgs Doublet Model

L. Fromme, S. J. Huber, and M. Seniuch, JHEP11, 038 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605242

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[7]

E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee, H. Murayama, and G. Servant, JHEP04, 042 (2020), arXiv:1910.08068 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

Elor et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.05010 [hep-ph]

G. Elor et al., in Snowmass 2021 (2022) arXiv:2203.05010 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[9]

Changes in Dark Matter Properties After Freeze-Out

T. Cohen, D. E. Morrissey, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D78, 111701 (2008), arXiv:0808.3994 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008
[10]

K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rept.537, 91 (2014), arXiv:1308.0338 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[11]

M. J. Baker and J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 061801 (2017), arXiv:1608.07578 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[12]

E. Hall, T. Konstandin, R. McGehee, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D107, 055011 (2023), arXiv:1911.12342 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[13]

Asadi, E

P. Asadi, E. D. Kramer, E. Kuflik, G. W. Ridgway, T. R. Slatyer, and J. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 211101 (2021), arXiv:2103.09822 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[14]

Asadi, E

P. Asadi, E. D. Kramer, E. Kuflik, G. W. Ridgway, T. R. Slatyer, and J. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. D104, 095013 (2021), arXiv:2103.09827 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[15]

E. Hall, R. McGehee, H. Murayama, and B. Suter, Phys. Rev. D106, 075008 (2022), arXiv:2107.03398 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[16]

G. Elor, R. McGehee, and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 031803 (2023), arXiv:2112.03920 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[17]

Asadi et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.06680 [hep-ph]

P. Asadi et al., (2022), arXiv:2203.06680 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[18]

Singlet Higgs Phenomenology and the Electroweak Phase Transition

S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and G. Shaughnessy, JHEP08, 010 (2007), arXiv:0705.2425 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[19]

The Twin Higgs: Natural Electroweak Breaking from Mirror Symmetry

Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 231802 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506256

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006
[20]

Gravitational Waves From a Dark (Twin) Phase Transition

P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 181101 (2015), arXiv:1504.07263 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[21]

I. P. Ivanov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.95, 160 (2017), arXiv:1702.03776 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[22]

Holography and the Electroweak Phase Transition

P. Creminelli, A. Nicolis, and R. Rattazzi, JHEP03, 051 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0107141

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002
[23]

Gravitational Waves from Warped Spacetime

L. Randall and G. Servant, JHEP05, 054 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0607158

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[24]

A Confining Strong First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition

G. Nardini, M. Quiros, and A. Wulzer, JHEP09, 077 (2007), arXiv:0706.3388 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007
[25]

Gravitational Backreaction Effects on the Holographic Phase Transition

T. Konstandin, G. Nardini, and M. Quiros, Phys. Rev. D82, 083513 (2010), arXiv:1007.1468 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[26]

Cosmological Consequences of Nearly Conformal Dynamics at the TeV scale

T. Konstandin and G. Servant, JCAP12, 009 (2011), arXiv:1104.4791 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011
[27]

The Supercooled Universe

P. Baratella, A. Pomarol, and F. Rompineve, JHEP03, 100 (2019), arXiv:1812.06996 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[28]

Agashe, P

K. Agashe, P. Du, M. Ekhterachian, S. Kumar, and R. Sundrum, JHEP05, 086 (2020), arXiv:1910.06238 [hep-ph]. 31

work page arXiv 2020
[29]

Agashe, P

K. Agashe, P. Du, M. Ekhterachian, S. Kumar, and R. Sundrum, JHEP02, 051 (2021), arXiv:2010.04083 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2021
[30]

F. R. Ares, M. Hindmarsh, C. Hoyos, and N. Jokela, JHEP21, 100 (2020), arXiv:2011.12878 [hep-th]

work page arXiv 2020
[31]

N. Levi, T. Opferkuch, and D. Redigolo, JHEP02, 125 (2023), arXiv:2212.08085 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[32]

R. K. Mishra and L. Randall, JHEP12, 036 (2023), arXiv:2309.10090 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[33]

Kosowsky, M

A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 2026 (1992)

work page 2026
[34]

Kosowsky, M

A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Phys. Rev. D45, 4514 (1992)

work page 1992
[35]

Gravitational Radiation from Colliding Vacuum Bubbles: Envelope Approximation to Many-Bubble Collisions

A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D47, 4372 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9211004

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993
[36]

Gravitational Radiation from First-Order Phase Transitions

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D49, 2837 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310044

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994
[37]

Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions

C. Caprini et al., JCAP04, 001 (2016), arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[38]

Caprini et al., JCAP03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

C. Caprini et al., JCAP03, 024 (2020), arXiv:1910.13125 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[39]

Caldwell et al., Gen

R. Caldwell et al., Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 156 (2022), arXiv:2203.07972 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[40]

Auclair et al

P. Auclair et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel.26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[42]

The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[43]

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]

work page arXiv 2023
[44]

Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

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

work page arXiv 2023
[45]

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[46]

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

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[47]

A. G. Riess et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[48]

Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

N. Aghanim et 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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[49]

Sch¨ oneberg, G

N. Sch¨ oneberg, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. P´ erez S´ anchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin, and J. Lesgourgues, Phys. Rept.984, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[50]

I. M. Bloch, C. Cs´ aki, M. Geller, and T. Volansky, JHEP12, 191 (2020), arXiv:1912.08840 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[51]

Bai and M

Y. Bai and M. Korwar, Phys. Rev. D105, 095015 (2022), arXiv:2109.14765 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[52]

Cielo, M

M. Cielo, M. Escudero, G. Mangano, and O. Pisanti, Phys. Rev. D108, L121301 (2023), arXiv:2306.05460 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[53]

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

work page 1989
[54]

Vilenkin and E

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

work page 2000
[55]

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

work page 1976
[56]

Vilenkin, Phys

A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D23, 852 (1981)

work page 1981
[57]

Sikivie, Phys

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

work page 1982
[58]

G. B. Gelmini, M. Gleiser, and E. W. Kolb, Phys. Rev. D39, 1558 (1989)

work page 1989
[59]

A review of gravitational waves from cosmic domain walls

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

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[60]

B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84, 116902 (2021), arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[61]

S. W. Hawking, Nature248, 30 (1974)

work page 1974
[62]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

work page 1975
[63]

Baryon Asymmetry, Dark Matter, and Density Perturbation from PBH

T. Fujita, M. Kawasaki, K. Harigaya, and R. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. D89, 103501 (2014), arXiv:1401.1909 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[64]

Non-thermal Production of Dark Matter from Primordial Black Holes

R. Allahverdi, J. Dent, and J. Osinski, Phys. Rev. D97, 055013 (2018), arXiv:1711.10511 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[65]

Black Hole Genesis of Dark Matter

O. Lennon, J. March-Russell, R. Petrossian-Byrne, and H. Tillim, JCAP04, 009 (2018), arXiv:1712.07664 [hep-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[66]

Hooper, G

D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP08, 001 (2019), arXiv:1905.01301 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2019
[67]

Masina, Eur

I. Masina, Eur. Phys. J. Plus135, 552 (2020), arXiv:2004.04740 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[68]

Baldes, Q

I. Baldes, Q. Decant, D. C. Hooper, and L. Lopez-Honorez, JCAP08, 045 (2020), arXiv:2004.14773 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[69]

Gondolo, P

P. Gondolo, P. Sandick, and B. Shams Es Haghi, Phys. Rev. D102, 095018 (2020), arXiv:2009.02424 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2020
[70]

Bernal and ´O

N. Bernal and ´O. Zapata, JCAP03, 015 (2021), arXiv:2011.12306 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[71]

Hooper and G

D. Hooper and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D103, 043504 (2021), arXiv:2010.01134 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2021
[72]

Bernal, C

N. Bernal, C. S. Fong, Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. D106, 035019 (2022), arXiv:2203.08823 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2022
[73]

Bhaumik, A

N. Bhaumik, A. Ghoshal, and M. Lewicki, JHEP07, 130 (2022), arXiv:2205.06260 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2022
[74]

Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914

M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka, and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[75]

S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Mu˜ noz, Y. Ali-Ha¨ ımoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli, and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 201301 (2016), arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016
[76]

The clustering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: measuring their mass distribution with Advanced LIGO

S. Clesse and J. Garc´ ıa-Bellido, Phys. Dark Univ.15, 142 (2017), arXiv:1603.05234 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[77]

H¨ utsi, M

G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP03, 068 (2021), arXiv:2012.02786 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2021
[78]

A. Hall, A. D. Gow, and C. T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. D102, 123524 (2020), arXiv:2008.13704 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2020
[79]

Franciolini, V

G. Franciolini, V. Baibhav, V. De Luca, K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D105, 083526 (2022), arXiv:2105.03349 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[80]

J. He, H. Deng, Y.-S. Piao, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D109, 044035 (2024), arXiv:2303.16810 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2024
[81]

Primordial Black Holes as Generators of Cosmic Structures

B. Carr and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 3756 (2018), arXiv:1801.00672 [astro-ph.CO]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.