Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 137 references

A nonzero θ-angle reduces supercooling in confining Yang-Mills transitions and, outside a fine-tuned window, destroys any domain-wall network before it can leave a gravitational-wave imprint.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 14:18 UTC pith:6O4NO5SW

load-bearing objection Directional claim is safe, but the DW/GW numbers have a factor-π percolation error and an unvalidated N=1 SYM wall tension; still worth refereeing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18800 v1 pith:6O4NO5SW submitted 2026-07-21 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th

Domain Walls From Confining Bubbles: SU(N_(c)) Yang Mills at Finite θ

Bruno Missoni , Enrico Morgante , Nicklas Ramberg This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords Yang-Millstheta angleconfinement phase transitiondomain wallsgravitational wavesholographic QCDsupercoolingfirst-order phase transition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that introducing a nonzero θ-angle into SU(N_c) Yang-Mills theory changes the confinement phase transition in two ways. Using the IHQCD holographic model, the critical temperature T_c decreases as θ increases for fixed large N_c, which reduces the maximum supercooling of the deconfined phase and weakens the gravitational-wave signal from bubble collisions. Because the vacuum at finite θ has multiple branches, colliding bubbles can populate different branches and produce a domain-wall network; however, the energy bias between the two lowest branches is so large that, for typical parameters, the network annihilates immediately after the transition. Only within a tightly tuned region of parameter space—ε_θ ≲ 10^-4, large N_c, and high T_c—can the walls survive into the scaling regime and produce a detectable signal, with the peak amplitude bounded around Ω_GW h² ≲ 10^-10. The overall conclusion is that the θ-angle suppresses both the phase-transition and domain-wall gravitational-wave signals unless significant fine-tuning is in place.

Core claim

The central claim is that, for large but fixed N_c, the critical temperature of the deconfinement/confinement transition decreases with θ_UV, T_c(θ) < T_c(0), so the amount of supercooling ϵ = 1 - T_n/T_c is reduced. This follows from the axion contribution to the free energy of the confined (thermal gas) phase, which stabilizes it relative to the deconfined phase; the paper identifies N_c,min ≈ 10 as the threshold below which axion backreaction can no longer be neglected. After the transition, bubbles can nucleate in different vacuum branches k, and if the percolation condition for the k = -1 branch is met, a domain-wall network can form. But the bias δV = 2π(π - θ_UV)χ is typically so stro

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tools are the multi-branched Yang-Mills vacuum energy E(θ) = (1/2)χ min_k (θ_UV + 2πk)², which produces nearly degenerate branches separated by domain walls; the IHQCD axion action giving the θ-dependent free-energy shift in the confined phase; and the percolation criterion for network formation, supplemented by the N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills expression for the wall tension σ ≈ (N_c/4π)Λ³. A hierarchy of timescales—local equilibration (~1/T_c), hydrodynamic damping of thermal fluctuations, and the Hubble time—decides whether a connected network can form at all. The multi-branched vacuum structure is the central object: it makes domain-wall production possible, while the r

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative thresholds and gravitational-wave amplitudes all inherit the unsupported assumption that the domain-wall tension in SU(N_c) Yang-Mills equals the supersymmetric result σ ≈ (N_c/4π)Λ³, since no IHQCD computation of this tension exists.

What would settle it

Compute the domain-wall surface tension in IHQCD by solving for a planar wall with an axion profile a(r, z); if σ deviates by more than an O(1) factor from (N_c/4π)Λ³, the derived annihilation temperature (64), survival condition (63), and tuning window (68) all shift, and the gravitational-wave bounds require revision. Alternatively, a lattice determination of T_c(θ) for N_c ≈ 10 showing no decrease of T_c with θ would refute the central supercooling claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Hidden SU(N_c) Yang-Mills sectors with θ ≠ 0 produce weaker gravitational waves from the confinement phase transition itself than at θ = 0.
  • Domain-wall gravitational-wave signals from confining transitions exist only in a tightly tuned region of (θ, N_c, T_c); for typical parameters the walls annihilate before reaching the scaling regime.
  • The reduced supercooling implies a larger β/H, further suppressing bubble-collision gravitational-wave spectra.
  • The paper identifies N_c,min ≈ 10 as the threshold below which the large-N_c approximation and the neglect of axion backreaction break down.
  • The derived scaling relations for the GW peak (Ω ~ N_c⁴ T_c⁴/ε_θ²) allow correlated searches for phase-transition and domain-wall signals in future experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If a direct IHQCD computation of the domain-wall tension yields a value differing by an O(1) factor from the supersymmetric ansatz, the tuned window (68) and the peak-amplitude bound (74) shift correspondingly; a smaller σ would widen the window while a larger σ narrows it, but the qualitative need for fine-tuning likely survives.
  • The percolation bound (41) is derived from static percolation theory with a fixed bubble-radius estimate ξ ≈ O(10); dynamical simulations of vacuum-branch assignment during bubble coalescence could change the effective percolation threshold and hence the allowed ε_θ window for network formation.
  • The paper's timescale argument suggests that in any strongly coupled, non-conformal first-order phase transition with a multi-branched vacuum, domain-wall production is not instantaneous with percolation: local reheating and bulk-viscous damping can delay network formation by several Hubble times, weakening gravitational-wave emission even if the scaling regime is eventually reached.
  • A lattice determination of T_c(θ) for N_c ≈ 10–20 could directly test the holographic prediction that T_c decreases with θ; existing lattice data at imaginary θ already point in this direction, though the holographic model makes the additional quantitative claim about the minimal temperature T_min.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the confinement phase transition of large-N_c SU(N_c) pure Yang-Mills theory at finite θ using the Improved Holographic QCD (IHQCD) model with a non-backreacting axion. The central directional claim is that adding the θ-dependent vacuum-energy term to the confined-phase free energy lowers the critical temperature T_c relative to the deconfined branch, thereby reducing the maximal supercooling and suppressing gravitational-wave signals from the phase transition itself. The paper then analyzes the production of domain walls between different k-vacuum branches when confining bubbles nucleate at θ ≠ 0. Using percolation theory, it derives a window in θ near π where a domain-wall network can form. The surface tension is borrowed from N=1 super Yang-Mills, and from this the paper derives conditions for immediate annihilation, the annihilation temperature, the viable parameter window for a scaling network, and the resulting gravitational-wave spectrum. The conclusion is that, unless significant fine-tuning of (θ, N_c, T_c) is present, the domain-wall network annihilates too quickly to leave an observable gravitational-wave imprint.

Significance. If the quantitative chain were secure, the paper would provide an interesting holographic perspective on how a finite θ-angle modifies both the confinement phase transition and the subsequent domain-wall cosmology of a hidden SU(N_c) sector. The directional prediction—T_c decreases with θ—is consistent with lattice results at imaginary θ [51,52], which lends credibility to the model. The paper is explicit about its limitations and carefully distinguishes derived results from assumptions, particularly the borrowed domain-wall tension and the neglect of axion backreaction. The discussion of hydrodynamic timescales and local reheating during bubble coalescence is a useful qualitative contribution. However, the quantitative statements about domain-wall survival, annihilation temperatures, and gravitational-wave amplitudes rest on inputs that are either adopted from a different theory (N=1 SYM) or are internally inconsistent (the percolation bound in Eq. (41)). The central directional claim is plausible as a consistency check, but the paper's more specific phenomenological conclusions are not yet at a level that would support the strong 'no signal without fine-tuning' statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (41)] Equation (41) is inconsistent with the preceding equations. From Eq. (40), p_{-1}/p_0 ≈ exp(-4.58 ξ^3 ε_θ). Requiring p_{-1} > p_c with p_c = 0.31 gives -4.58 ξ^3 ε_θ > ln(0.31), i.e. ε_θ < 0.256/ξ^3. Equation (41) instead states ε_θ ≲ 5.6×10^{-2}/(ξ^3 π) ≈ 0.0178/ξ^3, a factor of about 14 more stringent. This discrepancy is not a small numerical slip: it changes the allowed θ-window for network formation by more than an order of magnitude. The examples in Sec. V exacerbate the issue: with ξ=10, Eq. (41) gives ε_θ ≲ 1.8×10^{-5}, but the text and footnote 8 use ε_θ ~ 1×10^{-4} or 1.7×10^{-4} as consistent with the percolation bound. This affects the tuning range (68) and the overall conclusion that fine-tuning is required.
  2. [Sec. IV.C, Eq. (60)] The domain-wall surface tension is taken from N=1 super Yang-Mills, σ ≈ N_c/(4π) Λ^3, with the authors explicitly stating that 'there is no quantitative prediction of this surface tension computed with IHQCD' and that the correction is expected to be O(1). This input is load-bearing: the survival condition (63), annihilation temperature (64), viable x-window (68), and gravitational-wave amplitude (72) all scale with σ or with δV/σ. If the true IHQCD tension differs by an O(1) factor, or has a different N_c scaling, the condition T_c ≳ (ε_θ/N_c) 2×10^14 GeV changes accordingly, and the parameter volume requiring fine-tuning can shift substantially. In particular, a larger σ would make the network more likely to survive and reach scaling, potentially producing observable gravitational waves without extreme tuning. The expectation of an O(1) correction is plausible but not derived; without
  3. [Sec. III, Eqs. (33)-(35)] The reduction of T_c with θ is constructed using lattice-matched quantities (χ, T_c, Λ) and IHQCD parameters previously fitted to N_c=3 lattice/glueball data. As the authors note, the qualitative decrease agrees with lattice results [51,52]. However, this means the central directional claim is largely a consistency check rather than an independent prediction of the model. This is not an error, but it should be reflected in the framing: the paper's phenomenological conclusions about gravitational waves and tuning rest on this agreement, not on a new first-principles computation. The claim that the model 'shows' the reduction would be better phrased as 'reproduces the known lattice behavior within the holographic setup.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, text around Eq. (35)] At θ_UV = π, the k=0 and k=-1 branches are exactly degenerate, so calling k=0 'metastable' at θ_UV = π is imprecise; k=0 becomes metastable only for θ_UV > π.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (39)] The bubble radius R_0 ≈ ξ/T_c with ξ = O(10) is attributed to Ref. [79], listed as 'to appear.' Please provide a version or a more complete derivation, since this numerical prefactor directly enters the percolation exponent (40) and the tuning windows.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (24)] The IR boundary condition a(r→∞)=0 is stated with motivations from [42] and string-theoretic constructions, but it is an ad-hoc choice for IHQCD. Its impact on the vacuum energy (22) and hence on the T_c shift should be acknowledged at the point of use.
  4. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (52)] The damping timescale estimate Hτ_damp ∼ (12π/7) 10^{-10} v_w^2 (T_c/H) appears to miss a factor of 2 relative to the standard expression τ_damp = 2/(k^2 Γ_s) with k^{-1} = R_*. This is not central, but the numerical coefficient in Eq. (55) should be checked.
  5. [General] Minor typographical issues: 'Polaykov' in the caption of Fig. 6 should be 'Polyakov'; the phrase 'unless N_c is insanely large' in Sec. IV.C is informal and could be replaced by a quantitative statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the θ-dependent Tc shift follows from external lattice χ and Tc(θ=0) inputs, and the DW/GW estimates transparently borrow a SUSY tension rather than fitting the output.

full rationale

The central θ-dependent critical temperature is derived from the IHQCD axion action, normalized with external lattice inputs χ and Tc(θ=0) (Eqs. (32)-(33)), then the critical point is read from the free-energy balance. No fitted parameter for Tc(θ) enters, and the lattice curve [51,52] is used as a comparison, not as an input; this is a consistency check, not a fitted-input-called-prediction. The domain-wall and GW parts are openly conditional: Eq. (60) adopts the N=1 SYM tension because 'there is no quantitative prediction of this surface tension computed with IHQCD,' and Eqs. (62)-(72) propagate that assumption. This is a genuine limitation (a different σ, especially different Nc scaling, would shift Eq. (63) and the x-window in Eq. (68)), but it is not circular because σ is not defined in terms of the output. The paper also cites the authors' earlier work [32] and unpublished 'to appear' [79] for benchmark Tc values, vw, β/H, and ξ=O(10); these are order-of-magnitude inputs rather than target results, so they do not create a load-bearing self-citation chain. A separate correctness concern: Eq. (41) appears to disagree with Eq. (40) by roughly a factor 14 (Eq. (40) with pc=0.31 gives ϵθ < 0.255/ξ³, not 0.056/(ξ³π)), and Eq. (68) has a similar arithmetic mismatch; these are numerical errors, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced; the multi-branch theta-vacua and domain walls are established features of Yang-Mills theory. The paper's new content is a set of quantitative estimates built on existing model ingredients, lattice inputs, and external wall-tension results.

free parameters (5)
  • Dilaton potential parameters V1, V3 = V1=14, V3=170
    Fixed in IHQCD to match lattice glueball spectrum and pressure/trace anomaly (Ref [44]); control T(lambda_h), Tmin, and therefore the supercooling change.
  • Axion kinetic function parameters Z0, c_a = Z0=33.25, c_a=0.26
    Matched to pseudoscalar glueball spectrum and topological susceptibility (Refs [44,69]); sets chi and the theta-dependent free-energy term in Eq. (33).
  • Reference lattice scales chi, Tc, Lambda relative to sigma = chi ≈ 0.0221 sigma^2, Tc ≈ 0.597 sqrt(sigma), Lambda ≈ 1.17 Tc
    Treated as external inputs from lattice results (Refs [51,32]); used to normalize Eq. (33) and all subsequent numerical bounds.
  • Nucleation bubble radius prefactor xi = xi = O(10)
    Introduced in Eq. (39) as R0 = xi/Tc, attributed to unpublished work (Ref [79]); controls the percolation bound and domain-wall formation probability.
  • Wall velocity v_w = ~0.01 in benchmark [32]
    Used in the damping-time bound Eq. (55); taken from prior IHQCD studies, not derived here.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption IHQCD is a valid bottom-up holographic dual of pure SU(Nc) Yang-Mills, including confinement and the finite-temperature phase structure.
    Basis for using the thermal gas and black hole solutions to compute Tc and Tmin; imported from Refs [41-44].
  • domain assumption Large-Nc limit with negligible axion backreaction on the metric.
    Used throughout Secs. II-III; requires Nc above a validity estimate and Tc > Tmin, and forces a constant axion profile in the black hole phase.
  • ad hoc to paper IR boundary condition a(r -> infinity) = 0.
    Adopted from Refs [42,72] (Eq. 24); yields the quadratic branch energy E = 1/2 chi (theta + 2pi k)^2 and the multi-branch vacuum structure.
  • ad hoc to paper Vacuum branches are populated at nucleation with Boltzmann weight p_k proportional to exp(-Delta E_k/T).
    Eq. (36) assumes thermodynamic branch assignment for nucleated bubbles; no dynamical computation of branch selection is provided.
  • standard math 3D continuum percolation threshold p_c = 0.31.
    Cited to Ref [80]; used to derive the domain-wall network formation criterion Eq. (41).
  • ad hoc to paper The N=1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills domain-wall tension applies to pure Yang-Mills at finite theta.
    Eqs. (59)-(60), explicitly acknowledged: no IHQCD computation of sigma exists; all gravitational-wave and survival bounds inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Strongly coupled equilibration timescales and viscosity ratio zeta/s = 1/(4 pi) from IHQCD/AdS apply to the post-collision plasma.
    Appendix A, Eqs. (51) and (A1)-(A3), based on Refs [91-101,135]; used for the damping-time bound Eq. (55).
  • standard math Standard radiation-dominated FRW cosmology with g_star(Tc) ~ 100.
    Eq. (53) and the H(T) relation are used for Tann, Tdom, and the xi bounds.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22413 in / 24657 out tokens · 224496 ms · 2026-08-01T14:18:28.853989+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the confinement phase transition in SU($N_{c}$) pure Yang-Mills theory at finite $\theta \neq 0$ using the Improved Holographic QCD (IHQCD) model. We show that the critical temperature, as a function of $\theta$ for large but fixed $N_{c}$, is reduced, thus decreasing the amount of supercooling in the confinement phase transition. Upon completion of the confinement phase transition, a network of domain walls can be produced, owing to the multi-branched vacuum structure of Yang-Mills theory at finite $\theta$. We highlight the potential interplay between the produced domain walls and the confinement phase transition dynamics. We emphasize that DW production from bubble coalescence in strongly coupled non-conformal FOPTs is a dynamical process of vacuum assignment, hydrodynamics, and local reheating effects, all potentially affecting the approach towards the scaling regime. Lastly, we demonstrate the level of tuning necessary for potentially interesting imprints from gravitational waves through domain wall annihilation and its interplay with the confinement PT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18800 by Bruno Missoni, Enrico Morgante, Nicklas Ramberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Temperature curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Free energy diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Illustration of the branch structure of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Free energy curve with the axion contribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Illustration of bubble coalescence for the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Formation of a domain-wall network initially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Bulk viscosity-to-entropy density ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

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

137 extracted references · 98 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The ratioβ/Hdetermines the average bubble separationR ∗ in (42)

    Before Bubble Coalescence The duration of the phase transition, from the moment of nucleation (T n) to that of bubble percolation (T p) is given byβ −1, where [84] β=HT dSb dT T=T p (43) andS b is the bounce action. The ratioβ/Hdetermines the average bubble separationR ∗ in (42). Initially, the bubble is nucleated in a region of space with eitherk= 0 ork=...

  2. [2]

    Charting unexplored avenues in Dark Matter

    After Bubble Coalescence In this section, we present the timescales relevant for the formation of the DW network after bubble coales- cence. We use insights from the following collection of references regarding holographic thermalization, planar AdS/Asymptotic AdS wall collisions, and strongly cou- pled equilibration dynamics [89–100]. We will summa- rize...

  3. [3]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974)

    1974

  4. [4]

    A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett.20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  5. [5]

    M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760 (1975)

    1975

  6. [6]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D24, 2082 (1981)

    2082

  7. [7]

    Vilenkin, Phys

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

    1985

  8. [8]

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

    1976

  9. [9]

    Roshan and I

    R. Roshan and I. Saha, (2026), arXiv:2603.15829 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Wei and Y

    D. Wei and Y. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D110, 123505 (2024), arXiv:2208.07186 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Seto, Phys. Rev. D83, 044011 (2011), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 109901 (2017)], arXiv:1101.3940 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    G. Janssenet al., PoSAASKA14, 037 (2015), arXiv:1501.00127 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. Swiezewska, JHEP03, 007 (2023), arXiv:2210.07075 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis, JHEP02, 234 (2024), arXiv:2312.12413 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Schmitt and L

    D. Schmitt and L. Sagunski, JCAP02, 075 (2025), arXiv:2409.05851 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Sagunski, P

    L. Sagunski, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123512 (2023), arXiv:2303.02450 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    Lewicki, M

    M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, L. Sagunski, P. Schicho, and D. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D110, 023538 (2024), arXiv:2403.03769 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Madge, E

    E. Madge, E. Morgante, C. Puchades-Ib´ a˜ nez, N. Ram- berg, W. Ratzinger, S. Schenk, and P. Schwaller, JHEP 10, 171 (2023), arXiv:2306.14856 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Biondini and P

    S. Biondini and P. Schicho, (2026), arXiv:2607.02505 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White, JHEP04, 055 (2021), arXiv:2009.10080 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Christiansen, E

    M. Christiansen, E. Madge, C. Puchades-Ib´ a˜ nez, M. E. Ramirez-Quezada, and P. Schwaller, JHEP05, 014 (2026), arXiv:2511.02910 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Breitbach, J

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch, and P. Schwaller, JCAP07, 007 (2019), arXiv:1811.11175 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Madge and P

    E. Madge and P. Schwaller, JHEP02, 048 (2019), arXiv:1809.09110 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Barni, S

    G. Barni, S. Blasi, E. Madge, and M. Vanvlasselaer, JCAP03, 066 (2026), arXiv:2510.21439 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Blasi, R

    S. Blasi, R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg, JCAP10, 051 (2023), arXiv:2302.06952 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Baratella, A

    P. Baratella, A. Pomarol, and F. Rompineve, JHEP 03, 100 (2019), arXiv:1812.06996 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Bringmann, P

    T. Bringmann, P. F. Depta, T. Konstandin, K. Schmidt- Hoberg, and C. Tasillo, JCAP11, 053 (2023), arXiv:2306.09411 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Bringmann, T

    T. Bringmann, T. Konstandin, J. Matuszak, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, and C. Tasillo, (2026), arXiv:2602.09092 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Balan, T

    S. Balan, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, J. Matuszak, and C. Tasillo, JCAP08, 062 (2025), arXiv:2502.19478 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Kajantie, M

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  32. [32]

    Bhattacharyaet al., Phys

    T. Bhattacharyaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1402.5175 [hep-lat]. 15

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. R. Kane, V. Loladze, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041902 (2026), arXiv:2508.10091 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Morgante, N

    E. Morgante, N. Ramberg, and P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. D107, 036010 (2023), arXiv:2210.11821 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Huber, R

    S. Huber, R. Phipps, and M. Reichert, (2025), arXiv:2512.14530 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Pasechnik, M

    R. Pasechnik, M. Reichert, F. Sannino, and Z.-W. Wang, JHEP02, 159 (2024), arXiv:2309.16755 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Reichert, F

    M. Reichert, F. Sannino, Z.-W. Wang, and C. Zhang, JHEP01, 003 (2022), arXiv:2109.11552 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Huang, M

    W.-C. Huang, M. Reichert, F. Sannino, and Z.-W. Wang, Phys. Rev. D104, 035005 (2021), arXiv:2012.11614 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Houtz, M

    R. Houtz, M. Ulloa, and M. West, (2025), arXiv:2511.23467 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Croon, R

    D. Croon, R. Houtz, and V. Sanz, JHEP07, 146 (2019), arXiv:1904.10967 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Agrawal, G

    P. Agrawal, G. R. Kane, V. Loladze, and M. Reig, JHEP10, 066 (2025), arXiv:2504.00199 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Azatov and M

    A. Azatov and M. Vanvlasselaer, JHEP09, 085 (2020), arXiv:2003.10265 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Gursoy and E

    U. Gursoy and E. Kiritsis, JHEP02, 032 (2008), arXiv:0707.1324 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  44. [44]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, and F. Nitti, JHEP02, 019 (2008), arXiv:0707.1349 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  45. [45]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti, and F. Nitti, JHEP 05, 033 (2009), arXiv:0812.0792 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  46. [46]

    Gursoy, E

    U. Gursoy, E. Kiritsis, L. Mazzanti, and F. Nitti, Nucl. Phys. B820, 148 (2009), arXiv:0903.2859 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    R. K. Mishra, (2026), arXiv:2603.24732 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, A. L. Cotrone, P. Di Vec- chia, and A. Marzolla, JHEP12, 056 (2019), arXiv:1906.12117 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    Bigazzi, A

    F. Bigazzi, A. Caddeo, A. L. Cotrone, and A. Paredes, JHEP12, 200 (2020), arXiv:2008.02579 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Cs´ aki, E

    C. Cs´ aki, E. Kuflik, W. Xue, and T. Youn, (2026), arXiv:2603.25729 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Cs´ aki, E

    C. Cs´ aki, E. Kuflik, W. Xue, and T. Youn, (2026), arXiv:2604.02411 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Bartolini, F

    L. Bartolini, F. Bigazzi, S. Bolognesi, A. L. Cotrone, and A. Manenti, JHEP02, 029 (2017), arXiv:1611.00048 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    D’Elia and F

    M. D’Elia and F. Negro, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 072001 (2012), arXiv:1205.0538 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  54. [54]

    Bonanno, M

    C. Bonanno, M. D’Elia, and L. Verzichelli, JHEP02, 156 (2024), arXiv:2312.12202 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Poppitz, Symmetry14, 180 (2022), arXiv:2111.10423 [hep-th]

    E. Poppitz, Symmetry14, 180 (2022), arXiv:2111.10423 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Notari, F

    A. Notari, F. Rompineve, and F. Torrenti, JCAP07, 049 (2025), arXiv:2504.03636 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Babichev, I

    E. Babichev, I. Dankovsky, D. Gorbunov, S. Ra- mazanov, and A. Vikman, JCAP10, 103 (2025), arXiv:2504.07902 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Blasi, A

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

    arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, A. Sevrin, and K. Tur- bang, JCAP04, 008 (2023), arXiv:2210.14246 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Blasi, A

    S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, and A. Sevrin, JHEP 11, 169 (2023), arXiv:2306.17830 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Zambujal Ferreira, A

    R. Zambujal Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujol` as, and F. Rompineve, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 141101 (2022), arXiv:2107.07542 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 505 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9803131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  63. [63]

    Alvarez-Gaume, C

    L. Alvarez-Gaume, C. Gomez, H. Liu, and S. Wadia, Phys. Rev. D71, 124023 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0502227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [64]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B556, 89 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  65. [65]

    I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler, JHEP08, 052 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0007191

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  66. [66]

    I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B578, 123 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0002159

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  67. [67]

    Mateos, R

    D. Mateos, R. C. Myers, and R. M. Thomson, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 091601 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  68. [68]

    G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, JHEP02, 076 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0701099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  69. [69]

    B. M. Dillon, B. K. El-Menoufi, S. J. Huber, and J. P. Manuel, Phys. Rev. D98, 086005 (2018), arXiv:1708.02953 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2752 (1977)

    1977

  71. [71]

    G¨ ursoy, I

    U. G¨ ursoy, I. Iatrakis, E. Kiritsis, F. Nitti, and A. O’Bannon, JHEP02, 119 (2013), arXiv:1212.3894 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  72. [72]

    Kinar, E

    Y. Kinar, E. Schreiber, and J. Sonnenschein, Nucl. Phys. B566, 103 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9811192

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  73. [73]

    Vicari and H

    E. Vicari and H. Panagopoulos, Phys. Rept.470, 93 (2009), arXiv:0803.1593 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  74. [74]

    Witten, Phys

    E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 2862 (1998), arXiv:hep- th/9807109

    arXiv 1998

  75. [75]

    Bonati, M

    C. Bonati, M. D’Elia, H. Panagopoulos, and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 252003 (2013), arXiv:1301.7640 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    Lucini, M

    B. Lucini, M. Teper, and U. Wenger, Nucl. Phys. B 715, 461 (2005), arXiv:hep-lat/0401028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  77. [77]

    M. A. Shifman, Phys. Rev. D59, 021501 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9809184

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  78. [78]

    Sugeno and W

    T. Sugeno and W. Yin, (2025), arXiv:2511.19429 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    1977

  80. [80]

    C. G. Callan, Jr. and S. R. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D16, 1762 (1977)

    1977

Showing first 80 references.