Enhanced curvature perturbations from spherical domain walls nucleated during inflation
Abstract
We investigate spherical domain walls (DWs) nucleated via quantum tunneling in multifield inflationary models and curvature perturbations induced by the inhomogeneous distribution of those DWs. We consider the case that the Euclidean action of DWs changes with time during inflation so that most of DWs nucleate when reaches the minimum value and the radii of DWs are almost the same. When the Hubble horizon scale exceeds the DW radius after inflation, DWs begin to annihilate and release their energy into background radiation. Because of the random nature of the nucleation process, the statistics of DWs is of the Poisson type and the power spectrum of curvature perturbations has a characteristic slope . The amplitude of depends on the tension and abundance of DWs at the annihilation time while the peak mode depends on the mean separation of DWs. We also numerically obtain the energy spectra of scalar-induced gravitational waves from predicted curvature perturbations which are expected to be observed in multiband gravitational-wave detectors.
I Introduction
Domain walls (DWs) are sheet-like topological defects in three spatial dimensions that can be generated in the early Universe when a discrete symmetry is spontaneously broken. A variety of new physics models predict the existance of DWs Zeldovich et al. (1974); Kibble (1976); Vilenkin (1981), such as axion models Linde and Lyth (1990); Sikivie (1982); Hiramatsu et al. (2013a); Cicoli et al. (2012); Arvanitaki et al. (2010), suppersymmetric models Dvali and Shifman (1997); Kovner et al. (1997); Takahashi et al. (2008); Dine et al. (2010), and the Standard model Higgs Buttazzo et al. (2013); Andreassen et al. (2014); Krajewski et al. (2016). DWs receive extensive investigation since the formation and evolution of DWs leave trace on various cosmological observations including the large-scale structure Vilenkin (1985a); Hill et al. (1989), the cosmic microwave background (CMB) Zeldovich et al. (1974); Takahashi and Yin (2021); Gonzalez et al. (2022), stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds (SGWBs) Hiramatsu et al. (2014); Saikawa (2017a); Hiramatsu et al. (2013b); Wei and Jiang (2022); Sakharov et al. (2021); Liu et al. (2021) and first-order phase transitions Blasi and Mariotti (2022).
The formation of the DW network was regarded as a disaster in cosmology Zeldovich et al. (1974); Vilenkin (1985b); Saikawa (2017b). The curvature radius of DWs is comparable to the Hubble horizon size and the proportion of two different vacua are comparable to each other, which is well-known as the scaling behavior of DWs Press et al. (1989); Hindmarsh (1996). Numerical results confirm that the DW energy density scales as in the matter-dominated (MD) and radiation-dominated (RD) eras Martins et al. (2016); Leite and Martins (2011); Leite et al. (2013). Since decreases much slower than the energy density of radiation and matter, DWs will finally dominate the Universe which conflicts with the present observations Collaboration et al. (2020). The temperature fluctuations of the CMB imply that DWs with tension does not exist in the Universe at pressent Zeldovich et al. (1974). In general, the DW problem can be avoided by introducing a bias term in the effective potential so that DWs become unstable. In this case, the DW tension and the annihilation time can be constrained by the SGWB produced from the DW network Hiramatsu et al. (2014); Saikawa (2017a), see Ref. Jiang and Huang (2022) and Refs. Bian et al. (2022); Ferreira et al. (2022) for corresponding constraints from LIGO-Virgo and pulsar timing array experiments. Ref. Ramberg et al. (2022) obtains the constraint on DWs from CMB spectral distortions.
In this work, we focus on spherical DWs nucleated through quantum tunneling during inflation Basu et al. (1991); Liu et al. (2020a). This scenario of DW formation and evolution is remarkably different from the scaling case. The radius of spherical DWs is comparable to the Hubble scale at the nucleation time. Once DWs are nucleated, they are stretched by inflation and remain stable at superhorizon scales. The Hubble horizon expands after inflation, and DWs begin to collapse when they reenter the Hubble horizon. Since the tunneling rate is exponentially suppressed by the Euclidean action of DWs, , the DW problem is naturally avoided in this scenario. We consider the case that DWs have nonnegligible interaction with the matter fields so that the energy stored in DWs finally transforms into background radiation Vachaspati et al. (1984); Pujolas and Zahariade (2022); Blasi et al. (2022), rather than primordial black holes (PBHs) Tanahashi and Yoo (2015); Garriga et al. (2016); Deng et al. (2017a); Liu et al. (2020b); Ge (2020). According to Birkhoff’s theorem, the collapse of a single spherical DW cannot produce gravitational waves (GWs). However, the inhomogeneous distribution of spherical DWs induces curvature perturbations which can serve as the source of scalar-induced GWs, providing an opportunity to verify or give constraints to this scenario. Since the nucleation of different DWs is independent of each other, the statistics of DWs obey the Poisson distribution and induce superhorizon curvature perturbations with a typical slope in the infrared power spectrum. We obtain the energy spectrum of scalar-induced GWs which is expected to be detected in multiband GW detectors. For convenience, we choose throughout this paper.
II Statistical properties of DWs
II.1 Nucleation of DWs via quantum tunneling
The nucleation of quantum topological defects during inflation is investigated in Ref. Basu et al. (1991), where the authors obtain the nucleation rate of spherical DWs and cosmic string loops in a de Sitter background spacetime. The Euclideanized de Sitter space is a four-sphere of radius , and DWs nucleated during inflation by quantum tunneling can be described as a three-sphere with radius . The Euclidean action is proportional to the surface area
(1) |
where is the tension of DWs. The nucleation rate per unit physical volume per unit time is
(2) |
which is obtained in the semiclassical approximation, i.e., . The nucleation rate is exponentially suppressed in the case of . However, on the contrary, the case leads to the formation of the DW network. Thus, we mainly consider the case that and are of the same order. Here is a slowly varying function of which can be estimated as Basu et al. (1991); Garriga (1994). Then the number density of DWs is obtained as
(3) |
where denotes the nucleation time. One can find that the nucleation rate of DWs is totally described by the dynamics of inflation and the evolution of the tension . We investigate the case where the DW tension is not a constant during inflation. Since the nucleation rate is exponentially suppressed by , the nucleation of DWs happens in a small period around the time when reaches the minimum so that the radii of spherical DWs are almost the same, see Ref. Liu et al. (2020a) for a specific example. In this case, the probability of nucleating a spherical DW in a Hubble-sized region at is obtained by
(4) | |||||
where is the typical time scale of the nucleation process.
II.2 Statistical distribution of DWs
The previous section indicates that spherical DWs with the comoving radius are randomly generated in the Universe when the Euclidean action reaches the minimum at . The nucleation of DWs is irrelevant in each Hubble volume, which means that DWs satisfy the Poisson distribution. Consider a comoving volume of , where and . To investigate the statistical properties of spherical DWs, should be larger than their comoving mean separation, , so that plenty enough spherical DWs are contained in the volume. Let denote the probability that a spherical DW presents in a Hubble horizon and denote the number of spherical DWs contained in the -th Hubble volume, where and or by definition.
The expectation value and the varience of the random variable are respectively and . Since the DW number in the volume is much larger than one, according to the central limit theorem, the total DW number in the comoving volume is subject to Gaussian with the expectation value and the variance . We then obtain the power spectrum of curvature perturbations induced by the inhomogeneous distribution of DWs in the following.
We focus on density perturbations smoothed at the scale to avoid the nonlinear effect Bardeen et al. (1986)
(5) |
where with and being the spatial averaged energy density and its perturbations. Here we have chosen the Gaussian window function . The Fourier transformation of is
(6) | |||||
where is the Fourier transformation of . The variance of density perturbations can also be smoothed at this scale
(7) | |||||
where is the power spectrum of density perturbations. Assuming has a power-law form, , then Eq. (7) implies that the smoothed variance satisfies
(8) |
Total density perturbations are
(9) |
where we neglect other subdominant components in the Universe, and are density perturbations of radiation and DWs, respectively. Note that should be much smaller than , otherwise DWs will dominate the Universe which conflicts with the observations. Density perturbations from radiation and DWs both contribute to total density perturbations. In general, comes from vacuum fluctuations during inflation so that , while comes from the random distribution of spherical DWs which could be much larger than . In the case of , curvature perturbations induced by DWs become dominated, then we have
(10) | |||||
where is the tension of DWs at the annihilation time, is the averaged number of spherical DWs over each region of volume and we have used . Eq. (10) implies that is also a random variable which satisfies Gaussian distribution with zero expectation value and the variance reads
(11) |
Here, we can see that , so according to the discussion in Eq. (8), is proportional to . Since the length scale of induced perturbations is larger than the Hubble radius at the annihilation time, we can safely use the superhorizon relation
(12) |
where is the power spectrum of curvature perturbations. Eq. (12) allows us to parameterize in the form where is a cutoff scale arising from the requirement of central limit theorem . Since in smaller scale, the distribution of DWs become nongaussian and decrease rapidly, we simply apply the approximation and for . Then, Eq. (7) could be rewritten in the form
(13) | |||||
which helps to determine the coefficient
(14) |
The final result of the power spectrum of induced curvature perturbations is
(15) |
II.3 Evolution of the DW energy density
At the time when DWs are nucleated, the energy density of DWs is
(16) | |||||
Afterward, DWs are stretched by inflation and their tension evolves with time. At the end of inflation
(17) | |||||
(18) |
Here, we assume a short reheating process and the Universe quickly enters the RD era after inflation. If the tension of DWs remains constant after inflation, the energy density of spherical DWs scales as (the area of a single spherical DW scales as and the number density of spherical DWs scales as ) at superhorizon scales, while the total energy density scale as in the RD era, then we have
(19) |
where corresponding to the time that DWs reenter the horizon(annihilation time), which is long before reenter time of . Thus, the other undetermined term in Eq. (15), , can be obtained from physical parameters and during inflation. Note that cannot exceed even inside the Hubble horizons containing a spherical DW, otherwise, the Hubble horizon collapses into a PBH before , which is investigated as the “supercritical” case in Deng et al. (2017b). This condition requires . If the interaction between DWs and matter fields is nonnegligible, spherical DWs dissipate their energy into background radiation at the annihilation time. Thus, the random distribution of DWs finally leads to density perturbations in the background radiation.
III Scalar-induced GWs
Induced curvature perturbations reenter the Hubble horizon and begin to evolve soon after the annihilation of DWs. Since the collapse of a single spherical DW cannot produce GWs, the unique SGWB in this scenario is induced by curvature perturbations predicted in the last section. In this section, we introduce the formula to calculate GWs induced by scalar perturbations at the second order Espinosa et al. (2018); Kohri and Terada (2018). The perturbed metric of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Universe in the Newtonian gauge reads
(20) | |||||
where is conformal time, and represent scalar perturbations and denotes tensor perturbations of the second order. Here, we neglect vector perturbations and first-order tensor perturbations. We also neglect the anisotropic pressure so that we take in the following. The equation of motion (EoM) of the tensor modes sourced by curvature perturbations reads
(21) |
is the transverse-traceless projection operator and is the scalar-induced source term. Tensor perturbations can be expanded into the Fourier modes as
(22) |
where are the polarization tensors. Similarly, the Fourier modes of the source term are
(23) |
Then, the EoM of the tensor modes can be written in the form
(24) |
Here, we ignore the upper index of two different polarization modes since they satisfy the same equation. The source term reads
(25) | |||||
where is the equation of state parameter of the Universe and in the RD era. The Newtonian potential obeys the following equation
(26) |
where we ignore entropy perturbations. The initial value of the Newtonian potential, , is related to the power spectrum of curvature perturbations as
(27) |
We can use the Green’s function method to solve Eq. (24)
(28) |
where the Green function is the solution of
(29) |
The power spectrum of tensor perturbations is defined by
(30) |
The energy spectrum of GWs is defined as
(31) |
where the overline represents the oscillation average and the two polarization modes have been added up. Then, in the RD era, of scalar-induced GWs can be evaluated by the following integral
(32) | |||||
In order to obtain the GW energy spectrum at present, we need to take the thermal history into consideration
(33) |
where is the density parameter of radiation at present, and are the effect numbers of relativistic degrees of freedom at present and the radiation-matter equality, .
We choose three sets of parameters in Table. 1 to show the predictions of . The probability , the abundance of DWs and the cutoff scale are determined by the DW tension and the evolution of during inflation, and thus can also be treated as free parameters with the only constraint to avoid the formation of PBHs. For the three parameter sets, the predicted peak at Hz, Hz and Hz, respectively, which are expected to be detected by multiband GW detectors, including LISA/Taiji (set 1), DECIGO/BBO (set 2), CE/ET and LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration (set 3), as shown in Fig. 1.
set | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | |||
2 | |||
3 |
The observation of the CMB temperature anisotropies give strict constraints on primordial curvature perturbations for . At smaller scales, the observations of CMB spectral distortions, big-bang nucleosynthesis and ultracompact minihaloes also give constraints on at the scales of Emami and Smoot (2018); Gow et al. (2021). In the three parameter sets of Table. 1, the results of are orders of magnitude smaller than at the scale so that we safely avoid the constraints on from the observations of the CMB spectrum distortion and the ultracompact minihalo abundance. However, because of the limit on , GWs are constrained to be which is too weak to be observed in the nanohertz band by SKA.

IV Realistic example
We show the results of and of scalar-induced GWs in a realistic two-field inflationary model where changes with time during inflation. The action reads
(34) |
with the potential
(35) |
which provides two degenerate vacua in the direction. Since the dynamics of is unaffected by during inflation, the term alone is responsible for the inflationary dynamics and generating primordial perturbations Aghanim et al. (2020).
The Friedmann equation and the EoMs of and are
(36) |
We consider Starobinsky inflation with the potential
(37) |
The tension of DWs is a function of
(38) |
At the time , the Euclidean action reaches minimum and most of DWs nucleate. We choose a specific parameter set to show the result of the energy spectrum of induced GWs in Fig. 2, where . The initial value of the scalar fields are set to be and so that the predicted -folds is . peaks at about Hz with the peak value , which is expected to be observed by DECIGO and BBO.

V Conclusion and disscussion
We have investigated spherical DWs nucleated during inflation via quantum tunneling and found their random distribution induces curvature perturbations at the length scales larger than the mean separation of spherical DWs. The statistics of DWs turn out to be the Poisson type and the power spectrum of induced curvature perturbations is proportional to . We numerically calculate the energy spectrum of scalar-induced GWs in terms of which can be detected by multiband GW detectors. Since the collapse of spherical DWs does not directly produce GWs, our work provides a practical method to detect or constrain the case that the energy of spherical DWs decays into radiation.
This result is also applicable to false vacuum bubbles nucleated during inflation, proposed in Refs. Ashoorioon (2015); Ashoorioon et al. (2021); Deng and Vilenkin (2017); Deng (2020), where the vacua of the effective potential are nondegenerate. Induced curvature perturbations from Poisson distribution have been also discussed in other physical processes in the early Universe such as PBH formation Papanikolaou et al. (2021, 2022); Bhaumik et al. (2022a, b); Domènech et al. (2021) and first-order phase transitions Liu et al. (2022). These processes directly produce another SGWB from the transverse-traceless part of the energy-momentum tensor, which could be distinguished from the random distribution of spherical DWs or false vacuum bubbles.
VI Acknowledgement
This work is supported in part by the National Key Research and Development Program of China Grant No.2020YFC2201501, in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grants No. 12105060, No. 12147103, No. 12075297 and No. 12235019, and in part by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
References
- Zeldovich et al. (1974) Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67, 3 (1974).
- Kibble (1976) T. W. B. Kibble, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 9, 1387 (1976).
- Vilenkin (1981) A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 23, 852 (1981).
- Linde and Lyth (1990) A. D. Linde and D. H. Lyth, Physics Letters B 246, 353 (1990).
- Sikivie (1982) P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1156 (1982).
- Hiramatsu et al. (2013a) T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, JCAP 01, 001, arXiv:1207.3166 [hep-ph] .
- Cicoli et al. (2012) M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP 10, 146, arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th] .
- Arvanitaki et al. (2010) A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th] .
- Dvali and Shifman (1997) G. R. Dvali and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Lett. B 396, 64 (1997), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 407, 452 (1997)], arXiv:hep-th/9612128 .
- Kovner et al. (1997) A. Kovner, M. A. Shifman, and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Rev. D 56, 7978 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9706089 .
- Takahashi et al. (2008) F. Takahashi, T. T. Yanagida, and K. Yonekura, Physics Letters B 664, 194 (2008).
- Dine et al. (2010) M. Dine, F. Takahashi, and T. T. Yanagida, JHEP 07, 003, arXiv:1005.3613 [hep-th] .
- Buttazzo et al. (2013) D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, G. F. Giudice, F. Sala, A. Salvio, and A. Strumia, JHEP 12, 089, arXiv:1307.3536 [hep-ph] .
- Andreassen et al. (2014) A. Andreassen, W. Frost, and M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 241801 (2014), arXiv:1408.0292 [hep-ph] .
- Krajewski et al. (2016) T. Krajewski, Z. Lalak, M. Lewicki, and P. Olszewski, JCAP 12, 036, arXiv:1608.05719 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Vilenkin (1985a) A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rept. 121, 263 (1985a).
- Hill et al. (1989) C. T. Hill, D. N. Schramm, and J. N. Fry, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 19, 25 (1989).
- Takahashi and Yin (2021) F. Takahashi and W. Yin, JCAP 04, 007, arXiv:2012.11576 [hep-ph] .
- Gonzalez et al. (2022) D. Gonzalez, N. Kitajima, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, (2022), arXiv:2211.06849 [hep-ph] .
- Hiramatsu et al. (2014) T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP 02, 031, arXiv:1309.5001 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Saikawa (2017a) K. Saikawa, Universe 3, 40 (2017a), arXiv:1703.02576 [hep-ph] .
- Hiramatsu et al. (2013b) T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (01), 001, arXiv:1207.3166 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph].
- Wei and Jiang (2022) D. Wei and Y. Jiang, (2022), arXiv:2208.07186 [hep-ph] .
- Sakharov et al. (2021) A. S. Sakharov, Y. N. Eroshenko, and S. G. Rubin, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043005 (2021).
- Liu et al. (2021) J. Liu, R.-G. Cai, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141303 (2021), arXiv:2010.03225 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Blasi and Mariotti (2022) S. Blasi and A. Mariotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 261303 (2022), arXiv:2203.16450 [hep-ph] .
- Vilenkin (1985b) A. Vilenkin, Physics Reports 121, 263 (1985b).
- Saikawa (2017b) K. Saikawa, Universe 3, 40 (2017b), arXiv:1703.02576 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph].
- Press et al. (1989) W. H. Press, B. S. Ryden, and D. N. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 347, 590 (1989).
- Hindmarsh (1996) M. Hindmarsh, Physical Review Letters 77, 4495 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9605332.
- Martins et al. (2016) C. J. A. P. Martins, I. Y. Rybak, A. Avgoustidis, and E. P. S. Shellard, Physical Review D 93, 043534 (2016), arXiv:1602.01322 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th].
- Leite and Martins (2011) A. M. M. Leite and C. J. A. P. Martins, Physical Review D 84, 103523 (2011), arXiv:1110.3486 [astro-ph, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th].
- Leite et al. (2013) A. M. M. Leite, C. J. A. P. Martins, and E. P. S. Shellard, Physics Letters B 718, 740 (2013), arXiv:1206.6043 [hep-ph, physics:hep-th].
- Collaboration et al. (2020) P. Collaboration, Y. Akrami, and et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A1 (2020), arXiv: 1807.06205.
- Jiang and Huang (2022) Y. Jiang and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103036 (2022), arXiv:2208.00697 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Bian et al. (2022) L. Bian, S. Ge, C. Li, J. Shu, and J. Zong, (2022), arXiv:2212.07871 [hep-ph] .
- Ferreira et al. (2022) R. Z. Ferreira, A. Notari, O. Pujolas, and F. Rompineve, (2022), arXiv:2204.04228 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Ramberg et al. (2022) N. Ramberg, W. Ratzinger, and P. Schwaller, (2022), arXiv:2209.14313 [hep-ph] .
- Basu et al. (1991) R. Basu, A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Physical Review D 44, 340 (1991).
- Liu et al. (2020a) J. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. Cai, Physical Review D 101, 023513 (2020a), arXiv:1908.02662 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc, physics:hep-th].
- Vachaspati et al. (1984) T. Vachaspati, A. E. Everett, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2046 (1984).
- Pujolas and Zahariade (2022) O. Pujolas and G. Zahariade, (2022), arXiv:2212.11204 [hep-th] .
- Blasi et al. (2022) S. Blasi, A. Mariotti, A. Rase, A. Sevrin, and K. Turbang, (2022), arXiv:2210.14246 [hep-ph] .
- Tanahashi and Yoo (2015) N. Tanahashi and C.-M. Yoo, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 155003 (2015), arXiv:1411.7479 [gr-qc] .
- Garriga et al. (2016) J. Garriga, A. Vilenkin, and J. Zhang, JCAP 02, 064, arXiv:1512.01819 [hep-th] .
- Deng et al. (2017a) H. Deng, J. Garriga, and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 04, 050, arXiv:1612.03753 [gr-qc] .
- Liu et al. (2020b) J. Liu, Z.-K. Guo, and R.-G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 101, 023513 (2020b), arXiv:1908.02662 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Ge (2020) S. Ge, Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100440 (2020), arXiv:1905.12182 [hep-ph] .
- Garriga (1994) J. Garriga, Physical Review D 49, 6327 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9308280.
- Bardeen et al. (1986) J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, and A. S. Szalay, Astrophys. J. 304, 15 (1986).
- Deng et al. (2017b) H. Deng, J. Garriga, and A. Vilenkin, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (04), 050, arXiv:1612.03753 [gr-qc, physics:hep-th].
- Espinosa et al. (2018) J. R. Espinosa, D. Racco, and A. Riotto, JCAP 09, 012, arXiv:1804.07732 [hep-ph] .
- Kohri and Terada (2018) K. Kohri and T. Terada, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123532 (2018), arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc] .
- Emami and Smoot (2018) R. Emami and G. Smoot, JCAP 01, 007, arXiv:1705.09924 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Gow et al. (2021) A. D. Gow, C. T. Byrnes, P. S. Cole, and S. Young, JCAP 02, 002, arXiv:2008.03289 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Lentati et al. (2015) L. Lentati et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 453, 2576 (2015), arXiv:1504.03692 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Shannon et al. (2015) R. M. Shannon et al., Science 349, 1522 (2015), arXiv:1509.07320 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Arzoumanian et al. (2018) Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGRAV), Astrophys. J. 859, 47 (2018), arXiv:1801.02617 [astro-ph.HE] .
- Arzoumanian et al. (2020) Z. Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett. 905, L34 (2020), arXiv:2009.04496 [astro-ph.HE] .
- Hobbs et al. (2010) G. Hobbs et al., Gravitational waves. Proceedings, 8th Edoardo Amaldi Conference, Amaldi 8, New York, USA, June 22-26, 2009, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084013 (2010), arXiv:0911.5206 [astro-ph.SR] .
- Carilli and Rawlings (2004) C. L. Carilli and S. Rawlings, International SKA Conference 2003 Geraldton, Australia, July 27-August 2, 2003, New Astron. Rev. 48, 979 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0409274 [astro-ph] .
- Amaro-Seoane et al. (2017) P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM] .
- Ruan et al. (2018) W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, (2018), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc] .
- Kawamura et al. (2011) S. Kawamura et al., Laser interferometer space antenna. Proceedings, 8th International LISA Symposium, Stanford, USA, June 28-July 2, 2010, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094011 (2011).
- Phinney et al. (2004) S. Phinney, P. Bender, R. Buchman, R. Byer, N. Cornish, P. Fritschel, W. Folkner, S. Merkowitz, K. Danzmann, L. DiFiore, et al., NASA Mission Concept Study (2004).
- Aasi et al. (2015) J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc] .
- Somiya (2012) K. Somiya (KAGRA), Gravitational waves. Numerical relativity - data analysis. Proceedings, 9th Edoardo Amaldi Conference, Amaldi 9, and meeting, NRDA 2011, Cardiff, UK, July 10-15, 2011, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 124007 (2012), arXiv:1111.7185 [gr-qc] .
- Reitze et al. (2019) D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM] .
- Punturo et al. (2010) M. Punturo et al., Proceedings, 14th Workshop on Gravitational wave data analysis (GWDAW-14): Rome, Italy, January 26-29, 2010, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010).
- Schmitz (2021) K. Schmitz, JHEP 01, 097, arXiv:2002.04615 [hep-ph] .
- Aghanim et al. (2020) N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Ashoorioon (2015) A. Ashoorioon, Phys. Lett. B 747, 446 (2015), arXiv:1502.00556 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Ashoorioon et al. (2021) A. Ashoorioon, A. Rostami, and J. T. Firouzjaee, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123512 (2021), arXiv:2012.02817 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Deng and Vilenkin (2017) H. Deng and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 12, 044, arXiv:1710.02865 [gr-qc] .
- Deng (2020) H. Deng, JCAP 09, 023, arXiv:2006.11907 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Papanikolaou et al. (2021) T. Papanikolaou, V. Vennin, and D. Langlois, JCAP 03, 053, arXiv:2010.11573 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Papanikolaou et al. (2022) T. Papanikolaou, C. Tzerefos, S. Basilakos, and E. N. Saridakis, JCAP 10, 013, arXiv:2112.15059 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Bhaumik et al. (2022a) N. Bhaumik, A. Ghoshal, and M. Lewicki, JHEP 07, 130, arXiv:2205.06260 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Bhaumik et al. (2022b) N. Bhaumik, A. Ghoshal, R. K. Jain, and M. Lewicki, (2022b), arXiv:2212.00775 [astro-ph.CO] .
- Domènech et al. (2021) G. Domènech, C. Lin, and M. Sasaki, JCAP 04, 062, [Erratum: JCAP 11, E01 (2021)], arXiv:2012.08151 [gr-qc] .
- Liu et al. (2022) J. Liu, L. Bian, R.-G. Cai, Z.-K. Guo, and S.-J. Wang, (2022), arXiv:2208.14086 [astro-ph.CO] .