Scalar induced gravitational waves as probes of dark QCD

Ao Li; Jing-Zhi Zhou; Wan-Zhe Feng

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Scalar induced gravitational waves as probes of dark QCD

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dark QCD crossover imprints a frequency-shifted distortion on scalar-induced gravitational waves, offering a way to probe hidden confining sectors.

desk verdict A careful but conditional SIGW probe of a dark QCD crossover; the headline frequency shift depends on an unstated equal-temperature assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12706 v1 pith:ZSUU7SZP submitted 2026-08-13 hep-ph astro-ph.COgr-qc

Wan-Zhe Feng , Ao Li , Jing-Zhi Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.COgr-qc

keywords scalarinducedgravitationalwavesdarkQCDcrossovertwinHiggsasymmetricbaryonmatterequationofstatesoundspeedpulsartimingarrays

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that scalar-induced gravitational waves (SIGWs) can act as a cosmological probe of a hidden, strongly coupled dark QCD sector. It constructs the effective energy and entropy degrees of freedom for the Standard Model plus a dark QCD sector with a confinement scale about 5.5 times that of SM QCD, builds the resulting equation of state and sound speed, and solves for the second-order gravitational waves sourced by a monochromatic primordial curvature perturbation. The central result is that the dark QCD crossover produces its own spectral distortion, shifted to higher frequency than the SM QCD imprint, so the two features would appear at k/k_QCD ≈ 1 and k/k_QCD ≈ 5.5 respectively. If real, this gives gravitational-wave observatories a way to detect strong dynamics that is otherwise almost invisible to direct experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SIGW kernel built from the first-order scalar transfer function T_phi(k, eta), solved numerically with the time-dependent equation of state w(eta) and sound speed $c_s^{2}$(eta) derived from the effective degrees of freedom g_*(T) and g_{*s}(T). The dark sector input is obtained by a simple temperature rescaling by 5.5 of the SM hadron resonance gas, lattice trace anomaly, and perturbative QCD pressure, with quark masses tripled. The paper uses the diagnostic that the trough in the gravitational wave energy density spectrum sits at approximately $\sqrt$(2) c_s(eta_cancel), where eta_cancel is fixed by k_* eta_cancel approximately equal to 4, which ties the spectral feature to the sound-speed dip of the crossover.

What would settle it

A measurement of the SIGW spectrum that resolves the SM QCD trough near k/k_QCD ≈ 1 but shows no enhanced dip near k/k_QCD ≈ 5.5 would rule out the benchmark dark QCD signal; likewise, a lattice computation of a dark gauge theory with a first-order or differently shaped transition would change the predicted distortion and could be compared directly with the smooth-rescaling prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a dark QCD crossover — a smooth confinement transition in a hidden gauge sector at roughly 5.5 times the SM QCD scale — leaves a characteristic, frequency-shifted imprint on the scalar-induced gravitational wave spectrum. Treating the dark QCD thermodynamics as a temperature-rescaled copy of the SM QCD thermodynamics, with hadron masses scaled by 5.5 and quark masses by 3, the paper computes the equation of state parameter w(T) and the sound speed $c_s^{2}$(T), solves the first-order scalar perturbation equation with these time-dependent coefficients, and feeds the result into the second-order tensor source. For a monochromatic primordial power spectrum, the exact zero of the radiation-dominated spectrum is lifted to a finite trough and the resonant logarithmic singularity becomes a finite cusp. When the scalar mode reenters near the dark QCD crossover, the depth of that trough differs measurably from the SM-only prediction, with the dark feature sitting near k/k_QCD ≈ 5.5, at higher frequency than the SM feature near k/k_QCD ≈ 1.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the dark QCD crossover is a rescaled copy of the SM QCD crossover, with temperatures shifted by 5.5 and quark masses tripled, and that the dark sector bath shares the same temperature as the visible one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The realistic SM thermal history changes the SIGW spectrum relative to the idealized radiation-dominated case: the exact zero becomes a finite trough and the logarithmic resonance becomes a smooth cusp.
A dark QCD crossover at 5.5 times the SM QCD scale adds a second, higher-frequency distortion; in units of the SM QCD scale, the SM feature appears near k/k_QCD ≈ 1 and the dark feature near k/k_QCD ≈ 5.5.
For monochromatic primordial spectra whose peak scale reenters near the dark crossover, the trough value of the gravitational wave energy density fraction is significantly larger than in the SM-only history, while for modes reentering well below the dark crossover the spectra nearly coincide.
The six-flavor dark QCD benchmark gives a spectrum qualitatively similar to the minimal three-flavor case in the temperature range most relevant for the dark crossover.
With suitable template fits, pulsar timing array data could in principle search for both the SM QCD and the shifted dark QCD features against smooth astrophysical backgrounds.

Reading between the lines

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

The same rescaling logic could be turned around: detecting a shifted trough would measure the ratio of the dark confinement scale to the visible one, while its absence would push the dark confinement scale away from the 5.5 benchmark or require the dark sector to be colder than the SM bath.
If the dark transition is first order rather than a crossover, the evolution of w and c_s^2 would be sharper and the spectral distortion, especially the shape of the trough and cusp, would differ from the smooth-rescaling prediction; this makes the SIGW shape a potential discriminator of transition order.
Because the paper omits the twin leptonic sector and dark photon on the grounds of Delta N_eff constraints, a more complete thermal history including those states could shift g_* slightly and move the dark feature's location; quantifying that shift is a natural follow-up.
The method should transfer to other hidden confining sectors with different numbers of flavors and quark masses, so the same pipeline could map out a family of dark confinement signatures in the SIGW band.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on 2608.12706. It's a competent extension of the known SIGW-through-QCD-crossover computation to a benchmark dark QCD sector. The genuinely new pieces are the effective g*(T) and g_s(T) curves for three- and six-flavor dark QCD with Lambda_d = 5.5 Lambda_QCD, and the demonstration that a dark crossover leaves a frequency-shifted dip in the monochromatic SIGW spectrum. The machinery is standard and the numerical work is described carefully; the appendix on the SM g* reconstruction is solid and useful.

Where I'd push back: the characteristic feature at k/k_QCD ~ 5.5 is not derived from dark QCD dynamics; it is built in by choosing Lambda_d/Lambda_QCD = 5.5 and scaling the SM EoS. That is fine as a benchmark, but the paper should be clearer that the 'signature' is conditional on that benchmark. More importantly, the calculation implicitly assumes the dark QCD bath shares the SM temperature T. The stress-test note is right: if T_d = r T with r < 1, the dark crossover occurs at a different SM temperature and the feature location shifts to k/k_QCD ~ 5.5/r; for r ~ 1/5.5 it overlaps the SM QCD feature entirely. The paper never states the equal-temperature assumption or discusses how Delta Neff constraints or twin-lepton dynamics fix r. Since the headline is a frequency shift, this is the softest spot in the paper. Also, the thermodynamic uncertainty band for g* is constructed but not propagated to the SIGW spectra, so we don't know whether the claimed spectral differences are robust within their own EoS uncertainty. No code is provided, which is a minor reproducibility annoyance.

None of this kills the paper. The mechanism — a hidden confining crossover imprints on SIGWs — is plausible and the proof-of-principle is legitimate. The authors just need to state the temperature assumption, show how the feature depends on the temperature ratio, and propagate their EoS uncertainties. A JCAP referee should ask for those changes, not reject the paper.

I'd send it to a serious referee; for my own work I probably wouldn't cite it, and I'm not sure I'd schedule it in the reading group.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the energy-density spectrum of scalar induced gravitational waves (SIGWs) produced by a monochromatic primordial curvature perturbation, in a thermal history that includes not only the Standard Model QCD crossover but also a dark QCD sector with confinement scale Λ_dQCD ≃ 5.5 Λ_QCD, motivated by asymmetric twin baryon dark matter. The authors construct effective energy and entropy degrees of freedom for the SM plus a three-flavor or six-flavor dark QCD sector, using a temperature rescaling of SM hadron resonance gas, lattice, and perturbative QCD results. They then solve the first-order scalar perturbation equation and the second-order tensor equation numerically, with w(η) and c_s^2(η) derived from g_*(T) and g_*s(T). The main findings are that the realistic SM thermal history modifies the radiation-dominated SIGW spectrum in the trough region, and that adding the dark QCD sector produces an additional, frequency-shifted distortion when the scalar mode reenters the horizon near the dark confinement scale, with the dark feature located near k/k_QCD ~ 5.5.

Significance. If the assumptions hold, the paper provides a concrete template for using SIGWs to probe hidden confining sectors, extending the known SM QCD imprint to a well-motivated twin Higgs benchmark. Its strengths are the careful numerical treatment of the scalar transfer function with a time-dependent equation of state, the detailed reconstruction of g_* and g_*s from established SM QCD inputs, and the transparent comparison with the analytic radiation-dominated limit. The central quantitative claim, however, depends on an unstated and unargued assumption that the dark QCD bath has the same temperature as the SM bath, and on the assumption that the dark crossover is an exact rescaled copy of the SM one. These conditions control the location and shape of the predicted feature and need to be made explicit and tested before the result can be regarded as a robust 'characteristic signature.'

major comments (2)

[§2.2 (SM + dQCD3 construction) and §5 (Conclusion)] The dark-sector g_* and g_*s are constructed by evaluating SM QCD results at temperatures rescaled by a factor of 5.5 relative to the SM bath temperature T. This implicitly assumes T_d = T, i.e., that the dark QCD and SM baths share a common temperature. The paper gives no argument for this in the asymmetric twin baryon benchmark: it explicitly omits the twin leptonic sector and the dark photon, and it does not specify the decoupling or reheating dynamics that would set the temperature ratio. If T_d = r T, the dark crossover occurs when the SM temperature is T ≈ (5.5/r) T_QCD, shifting the feature to k/k_QCD ≈ 5.5/r up to g_* corrections. For r ≈ 1/5.5 the dark feature would coincide with the SM QCD feature, and the claimed frequency-shifted distortion would disappear. Because the load-bearing quantitative claim in the Conclusion is the location k/k_QCD ≈ 5.5, this missing parameter controls the central prediction. I request either an explicit model-based derivation of r = 1 or a scan over r, including the r < 1 regionmotivated by asymmetric reheating or entropy injection, with the resulting shift of the feature shown.
[§2.2, §4.2 and Abstract/Conclusion] The dark QCD equation of state is modeled by applying a single temperature rescaling of 5.5 to the SM hadron resonance gas, lattice trace anomaly, and perturbative QCD expressions. The spectral distortion computed in §4.2 is therefore conditional on the dark crossover being an exact rescaled copy of the SM crossover. A dark gauge theory with a first-order transition, a different N_f behavior, or a different relation between quark masses and the confinement scale would give a different distortion shape and amplitude. While the paper does state this as an approximation, the abstract and conclusion present the result as 'a characteristic signature of the dark QCD sector.' I recommend adding an explicit limitation and, if feasible, a simple robustness check (for example, a sharper crossover or a different N_f) to show which features of the spectrum are generic to any hidden confining sector and which are specific to the assumed benchmark.

minor comments (4)

[Table 2 caption] The caption of Table 2 says the cases are 'used to study the SM QCD crossover effect'; this should read 'dark QCD crossover effect' since the table describes SM + dQCD3 benchmarks.
[§4.2 and Fig. 5] Cases d–f select the peak scale k_* by hand so that it lies on the dark crossover region. A figure scanning k_* over a wider range would make the claim that a distinct feature appears near k/k_QCD ~ 5.5 visually supported rather than inherited from the input benchmark Λ_dQCD = 5.5 Λ_QCD and the chosen k_* values.
[§2.2, HRG rescaling] The dark hadron masses in the HRG are rescaled by 5.5 while the dark quark masses are taken to be 3 times the SM quark masses; for pseudo-Goldstone bosons these two scalings are not mutually consistent, and the text should clarify that the 5.5 rescaling of the full hadron spectrum is a simplification.
[§4.2, lower panel of Fig. 5] The lower panel of Fig. 5 plots an absolute relative difference whose denominator can be very small near the trough; the large values in that panel should be discussed so that the reader does not interpret them as a large absolute change in the spectral amplitude.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dark QCD feature location is an explicit input benchmark, and the spectral-shape predictions follow from solving the perturbation equations with no fitting to SIGW data.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The SM g* and g*s are taken from external lattice, hadron resonance gas, and perturbative QCD inputs (Saikawa-Shirai [1], Borsanyi et al. [33]), and the dark QCD g* and g*s are constructed by an explicitly stated rescaling of the SM thermodynamics (Section 2.2: 'we approximate the dark QCD contribution ... by a simple rescaling of the SM light flavor result ... shift the characteristic structures in g*(T) to higher temperatures by a factor of 5.5'). These are input assumptions, not quantities fitted to the SIGW spectrum. The subsequent steps — w(T), c_s^2(T), numerical solution of the scalar transfer function Eq. (3.4), and the second-order tensor integral Eq. (3.18) — are genuine computations from those inputs. The conclusion's statement that the dark feature appears at k/k_QCD ~ 5.5 is a direct consequence of the benchmark Lambda_dQCD = 5.5 Lambda_QCD in Eq. (1.1) together with the assumed common bath temperature; the paper labels it as a benchmark consequence ('For the benchmark considered here in Eq. (1.1)'), not as an independent discovery or a fit. The two self-citations, [15] (Feng-Yu) for the twin-baryon mass benchmark and [36] (Zhou et al.) for the SIGW formalism, are motivational or standard-formula references; neither is a uniqueness theorem nor an unverified assertion used to forbid alternatives, and the benchmark is additionally supported by [13,14] and the formalism by [5,37]. The implicit assumption T_dark = T_SM is a physical modeling assumption that shifts the feature location if relaxed; it is a limitation, not a circular step. The score of 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and the transparent input-to-feature mapping, while the central spectral-shape result remains an independent computation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on standard SIGW formalism and on a hand-scaled dark QCD equation of state. The scale ratio 5.5 and quark mass ratio 3 are inputs from the twin baryon benchmark, while T_s and q_c are matching parameters used to build g*(T). No new particle is introduced, and no external code or lattice data for the dark sector is provided.

free parameters (5)

dark confinement scale ratio Lambda_dQCD/Lambda_QCD = 5.5
Input benchmark from asymmetric twin baryon dark matter (Eq. 1.1); not fitted to data, but chosen by hand.
dark quark mass ratio m_q'/m_q = 3
Adopted from the v'/v greater or equal to 3 bound in Section 2.1; chosen, not fitted.
dark hadron mass rescaling factor for HRG = 5.5
Dark hadron masses are taken as 5.5 times SM masses in the hadron resonance gas below 660 MeV; a modeling choice.
dark sector switching temperature T_s = 2.75 GeV and 3 GeV
Two matching temperatures chosen at the low end of the rescaled lattice-pQCD window; the spread is used as an uncertainty estimate (Section 2.2).
pQCD coefficient q_c(N_f=3) for dark sector = varied over a range
No reference value exists for N_f=3 in the dark sector; q_c is varied so the pQCD trace anomaly matches the rescaled lattice result at T_s (Section 2.2).

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper The dark QCD crossover is qualitatively identical to SM QCD, so SM hadron resonance gas, lattice, and pQCD results can be rescaled by a temperature factor of 5.5.
Introduced in Section 2.2 ('we approximate the dark QCD contribution ... by a simple rescaling'); this is the central modeling assumption for the dark sector equation of state.
domain assumption The dark QCD sector is in thermal equilibrium with the SM bath at a common temperature T.
The total g*(T) and g_s(T) are constructed as sums at the same temperature; the paper does not state or justify thermal contact down to the dark confinement scale.
standard math The second-order SIGW evolution and source term (Eqs. 3.10 to 3.19) apply for a time-dependent equation of state and sound speed.
Taken from the cited literature [5,36]; not re-derived in this paper.
standard math The early universe is an adiabatic perfect fluid with no anisotropic stress, so psi = phi and Eq. (3.4) governs scalar perturbations.
Standard cosmological perturbation theory, invoked in Section 3.
standard math Entropy is conserved and the temperature-time relation of Appendix B (Eqs. B.4 to B.13) holds across the crossover epochs.
Standard radiation era cosmology; used to convert the temperature history to conformal time.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scalar induced gravitational waves as probes of dark QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSUU7SZP

@misc{pith2026260812706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scalar induced gravitational waves as probes of dark QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSUU7SZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12706}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate scalar induced gravitational waves (SIGWs) as probes of a dark QCD crossover. Motivated by twin Higgs and asymmetric twin baryon dark matter scenarios, we consider a dark QCD sector with a confinement scale approximately 5.5 times the Standard Model (SM) QCD scale. We construct the effective energy and entropy degrees of freedom for the SM supplemented by dark QCD sectors containing either three light dark quark flavors or all six dark quark flavors. The resulting equation of state parameter and sound speed are then used to solve the first-order scalar perturbations and the second-order SIGWs through the SM and dark QCD crossover epochs. For a monochromatic primordial curvature power spectrum, we first demonstrate that the realistic SM thermal history modifies the SIGW spectrum relative to the idealized radiation-dominated case. We then show that a dark QCD crossover generates an additional frequency-shifted distortion when the enhanced scalar mode reenters the horizon near the dark confinement scale. This distinctive feature can therefore serve as a characteristic signature of the dark QCD sector. Our results demonstrate that SIGWs provide a complementary cosmological probe of hidden confining sectors, with characteristic spectral features shifted to higher frequencies relative to the SM QCD imprint. The analysis developed in this work can also be extended to other well-motivated theories containing different dark confining sectors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

Saikawa and S

K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, JCAP05, 035 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/035 [arXiv:1803.01038 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2018
[2]

K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D75, 123518 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.123518 [arXiv:gr-qc/0612013 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2007
[3]

Baumann, P

D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D76, 084019 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084019 [arXiv:hep-th/0703290 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2007
[4]

Domènech, Int

G. Domènech, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, no.03, 2050028 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0218271820500285 [arXiv:1912.05583 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2020
[5]

K. T. Abe, Y. Tada and I. Ueda, JCAP06, 048 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/048 [arXiv:2010.06193 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2021
[6]

Domènech, Universe7, no.11, 398 (2021) doi:10.3390/universe7110398 [arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]]

G. Domènech, Universe7, no.11, 398 (2021) doi:10.3390/universe7110398 [arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2021
[7]

Yuan and Q

C. Yuan and Q. G. Huang, iScience24, 102860 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102860 [arXiv:2103.04739 [astro-ph.GA]]

arXiv 2021
[8]

Balaji, G

S. Balaji, G. Domènech and G. Franciolini, JCAP10, 041 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/041 [arXiv:2307.08552 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023

Show all 67 references

[9]

Q. H. Zhu, Z. C. Zhao, S. Wang and X. Zhang, Chin. Phys. C48, no.12, 125105 (2024) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ad79d5 [arXiv:2307.13574 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[10]

L. Liu, Z. C. Chen and Q. G. Huang, JCAP11, 071 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/071 [arXiv:2307.14911 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023 arXiv
[11]

Harigaya, K

K. Harigaya, K. Inomata and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D108, no.12, 123538 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123538 [arXiv:2309.00228 [astro-ph.CO]]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Domènech, S

G. Domènech, S. Pi, A. Wang and J. Wang, JCAP08, 054 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/054 [arXiv:2402.18965 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[13]

H. An, S. L. Chen, R. N. Mohapatra and Y. Zhang, JHEP03, 124 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2010)124 [arXiv:0911.4463 [hep-ph]]

2010 arXiv
[14]

Farina, JCAP11, 017 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/017 [arXiv:1506.03520 [hep-ph]]

M. Farina, JCAP11, 017 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/11/017 [arXiv:1506.03520 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[15]

W. Z. Feng and J. H. Yu, Commun. Theor. Phys.75, no.4, 045201 (2023) doi:10.1088/1572-9494/acbb5b [arXiv:2005.06471 [hep-ph]]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Chacko, H

Z. Chacko, H. S. Goh and R. Harnik, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 231802 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.231802 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506256 [hep-ph]]

2006 arXiv
[17]

Burdman, Z

G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, H. S. Goh and R. Harnik, JHEP02, 009 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/02/009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609152 [hep-ph]]

2007 arXiv
[18]

H. Cai, H. C. Cheng and J. Terning, JHEP05, 045 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/05/045 [arXiv:0812.0843 [hep-ph]]

2009 arXiv
[19]

Craig, S

N. Craig, S. Knapen and P. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, no.6, 061803 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061803 [arXiv:1410.6808 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[20]

Csáki, T

C. Csáki, T. Ma and J. Shu, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, no.23, 231801 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.231801 [arXiv:1709.08636 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Serra and R

J. Serra and R. Torre, Phys. Rev. D97, no.3, 035017 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.035017 [arXiv:1709.05399 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[22]

L. X. Xu, J. H. Yu and S. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D101, no.9, 095014 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.095014 [arXiv:1810.01882 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Cohen, N

T. Cohen, N. Craig, G. F. Giudice and M. Mccullough, JHEP05, 091 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)091 [arXiv:1803.03647 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[24]

L. X. Xu, J. H. Yu and S. H. Zhu, [arXiv:1905.12796 [hep-ph]]. – 24 –

1905 arXiv
[25]

Ahmed, S

A. Ahmed, S. Najjari and C. B. Verhaaren, JHEP06, 007 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2020)007 [arXiv:2003.08947 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[26]

P. A. R. Adeet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.571, A1 (2014) doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321529 [arXiv:1303.5062 [astro-ph.CO]]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron

N. Aghanimet al.[Planck], Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys.652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, no.3, 030001 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

2024 doi
[29]

Geller and O

M. Geller and O. Telem, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 191801 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191801 [arXiv:1411.2974 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[30]

Csaki, M

C. Csaki, M. Geller, O. Telem and A. Weiler, JHEP09, 146 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)146 [arXiv:1512.03427 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[31]

Barbieri, D

R. Barbieri, D. Greco, R. Rattazzi and A. Wulzer, JHEP08, 161 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2015)161 [arXiv:1501.07803 [hep-ph]]

2015 arXiv
[32]

Ahmed, JHEP02, 048 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)048 [arXiv:1711.03107 [hep-ph]]

A. Ahmed, JHEP02, 048 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)048 [arXiv:1711.03107 [hep-ph]]

2018 arXiv
[33]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. Guenther, K. H. Kampert, S. D. Katz, T. Kawanai, T. G. Kovacs, S. W. Mages, A. Pasztor and F. Pittler,et al.Nature539, no.7627, 69-71 (2016) doi:10.1038/nature20115 [arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]]

2016 arXiv
[34]

van Ritbergen, J

T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B400, 379-384 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00370-5 [arXiv:hep-ph/9701390 [hep-ph]]

1997 arXiv
[35]

Tanabashiet al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

M. Tanabashiet al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D98, no.3, 030001 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

2018 doi
[36]

J. Z. Zhou, Y. T. Kuang, D. Wu, F. Y. Chen, H. Lü and Z. Chang, JCAP12, 021 (2024) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/021 [arXiv:2409.07702 [gr-qc]]

2024 arXiv
[37]

Kohri and T

K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D97, no.12, 123532 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.123532 [arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]]

2018 arXiv
[38]

T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev.104, 254-258 (1956) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.104.254

1956 doi
[39]

I. Y. Kobzarev, L. B. Okun and I. Y. Pomeranchuk, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.3, no.6, 837-841 (1966)

1966
[40]

S. I. Blinnikov and M. Y. Khlopov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.36, 472 (1982) ITEP-11-1982

1982
[41]

A. D. Dolgov, S. H. Hansen and D. V. Semikoz, Nucl. Phys. B543, 269-274 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00818-9 [arXiv:hep-ph/9805467 [hep-ph]]

1999 arXiv
[42]

Mangano, G

G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor and M. Peloso, Phys. Lett. B534, 8-16 (2002) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01622-2 [arXiv:astro-ph/0111408 [astro-ph]]

2002 arXiv
[43]

Mangano, G

G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, T. Pinto, O. Pisanti and P. D. Serpico, Nucl. Phys. B729, 221-234 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.09.041 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506164 [hep-ph]]

2005 arXiv
[44]

P. F. de Salas and S. Pastor, JCAP07, 051 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/051 [arXiv:1606.06986 [hep-ph]]

2016 arXiv
[45]

Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim

R. Hagedorn, Nuovo Cim. Suppl.3, 147-186 (1965) CERN-TH-520

1965
[46]

Dashen, S

R. Dashen, S. K. Ma and H. J. Bernstein, Phys. Rev.187, 345-370 (1969) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.187.345

1969 doi
[47]

Venugopalan and M

R. Venugopalan and M. Prakash, Nucl. Phys. A546, 718-760 (1992) doi:10.1016/0375-9474(92)90005-5

1992 doi
[48]

Borsanyi, Z

S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B730, 99-104 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2014.01.007 [arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]]

2014 arXiv
[49]

Bellwied, S

R. Bellwied, S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, A. Pasztor, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Rev. D92, no.11, 114505 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.114505 [arXiv:1507.04627 [hep-lat]]

2015 arXiv
[50]

Borsanyi, G

S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, A. Jakovac, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti and K. K. Szabo, JHEP11, 077 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2010)077 [arXiv:1007.2580 [hep-lat]]. – 25 –

2010 arXiv
[51]

Bazavovet al.[HotQCD], Phys

A. Bazavovet al.[HotQCD], Phys. Rev. D90, 094503 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.094503 [arXiv:1407.6387 [hep-lat]]

2014 arXiv
[52]

P. H. Ginsparg, Nucl. Phys. B170, 388-408 (1980) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(80)90418-6

1980 doi
[53]

Braaten and A

E. Braaten and A. Nieto, Phys. Rev. D53, 3421-3437 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.53.3421 [arXiv:hep-ph/9510408 [hep-ph]]

1996 arXiv
[54]

Appelquist and R

T. Appelquist and R. D. Pisarski, Phys. Rev. D23, 2305 (1981) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.23.2305

1981 doi
[55]

E. V. Shuryak, Sov. Phys. JETP47, 212-219 (1978) IYF-77-34

1978
[56]

S. A. Chin, Phys. Lett. B78, 552-555 (1978) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90637-8

1978 doi
[57]

J. I. Kapusta, Nucl. Phys. B148, 461-498 (1979) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(79)90146-9

1979 doi
[58]

Toimela, Phys

T. Toimela, Phys. Lett. B124, 407-409 (1983) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(83)91484-3

1983 doi
[59]

P. B. Arnold and C. X. Zhai, Phys. Rev. D50, 7603-7623 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.7603 [arXiv:hep-ph/9408276 [hep-ph]]

1994 arXiv
[60]

P. B. Arnold and C. x. Zhai, Phys. Rev. D51, 1906-1918 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1906 [arXiv:hep-ph/9410360 [hep-ph]]

1995 arXiv
[61]

C. x. Zhai and B. M. Kastening, Phys. Rev. D52, 7232-7246 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.52.7232 [arXiv:hep-ph/9507380 [hep-ph]]

1995 arXiv
[62]

Kajantie, M

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen and Y. Schroder, Phys. Rev. D67, 105008 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67.105008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0211321 [hep-ph]]

2003 arXiv
[63]

Ellis, M

J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, G. Franciolini, G. Hütsi, A. Iovino, M. Lewicki, M. Raidal, J. Urrutia, V. Vaskonen and H. Veermäe, Phys. Rev. D109, no.2, 023522 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.023522 [arXiv:2308.08546 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[64]

A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B96, 289-292 (1980) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90769-8

1980 doi
[65]

D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski and L. G. Yaffe, Rev. Mod. Phys.53, 43 (1981) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.53.43

1981 doi
[66]

Laine and Y

M. Laine and Y. Schroder, Phys. Rev. D73, 085009 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.085009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603048 [hep-ph]]

2006 arXiv
[67]

Davoudiasl, R

H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, G. D. Kribs, H. Murayama and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 201301 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.201301 [arXiv:hep-ph/0403019 [hep-ph]]. – 26 –

2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Saikawa and S

K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, JCAP05, 035 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/05/035 [arXiv:1803.01038 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2018

[2] [2]

K. N. Ananda, C. Clarkson and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D75, 123518 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.75.123518 [arXiv:gr-qc/0612013 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2007

[3] [3]

Baumann, P

D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt, K. Takahashi and K. Ichiki, Phys. Rev. D76, 084019 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.084019 [arXiv:hep-th/0703290 [hep-th]]

arXiv 2007

[4] [4]

Domènech, Int

G. Domènech, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, no.03, 2050028 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0218271820500285 [arXiv:1912.05583 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2020

[5] [5]

K. T. Abe, Y. Tada and I. Ueda, JCAP06, 048 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/048 [arXiv:2010.06193 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Domènech, Universe7, no.11, 398 (2021) doi:10.3390/universe7110398 [arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]]

G. Domènech, Universe7, no.11, 398 (2021) doi:10.3390/universe7110398 [arXiv:2109.01398 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2021

[7] [7]

Yuan and Q

C. Yuan and Q. G. Huang, iScience24, 102860 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.isci.2021.102860 [arXiv:2103.04739 [astro-ph.GA]]

arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Balaji, G

S. Balaji, G. Domènech and G. Franciolini, JCAP10, 041 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/041 [arXiv:2307.08552 [gr-qc]]

arXiv 2023