Machine Learning for Multi-Messenger Probes of New Physics and Cosmology: Review and Perspective
Abstract
1. Introduction and General State-of-the-Art
1.1. Experiments for the Detection of Cosmic Rays and Multi-Messenger Probes for New Physics and Cosmology
1.2. State of the Art of Very-High-Energy-Cosmic-Rays (VHECR) Experiments
1.3. Perspective and Scope
2. Models of Dark Matter
2.1. Dark Matter from Supergravity
2.2. Axion-like Particles
2.3. PBH
2.4. Hadronic, Hadron-like and Composite Dark Matter
2.4.1. Hadronic and QCD-like Composite Dark Matter
2.4.2. Stable Multiple Charged Constituents of Dark Atoms
2.5. Mirror Dark Matter
3. Phenomenological Probes and Multi-Messenger Constraints
3.1. Constraining DM from VHECR
3.1.1. Interaction of VHECRs with the DM Particles in the Milky Way Galaxy
3.1.2. Theoretical Predictions for Cosmic Rays Experiments
3.2. The Multi-Messenger Cosmological Probes of New Physics in Cross Correlation with Its Physical and Astrophysical Effects
3.3. Detection of Decaying DM with Cosmic Rays Experiments
4. Gravitational-Wave Probes
- GW probes for Higgs sector couplings in the SM and beyond. GWs can be used as a source of information on triple/quartic Higgs coupling complementary to ongoing and planned measurements at colliders—see e.g., Refs. [115,116,117]. One can then investigate to what extent the GW can probe possible compositeness of the Higgs sector helping to distinguish between the composite versus elementary Higgs scenarios. Since composite QCD-like scenarios typically predict rather large self-interaction couplings, these may strongly enhance the strength of the phase transitions associated with the dynamical EW symmetry breaking. Similar studies have already been developed by some of us to probe the Higgs sector properties via GWs [118,119,120]. A cross-analysis of both GW observability limits and collider constraints then becomes mandatory. Composite models often predict scalar composite heavy DM candidates that might strongly affect the strength and other characteristics of high-scale phase transitions.
- GW probes for Higgs and gauge sector couplings in the SM and beyond. GWs from cosmological first-order phase transitions provide information on Higgs-sector interactions (including the triple/quartic Higgs couplings) that is complementary to collider measurements, see e.g., Refs. [115,116,117]. More generally, the GW signal is controlled by the finite-temperature scalar potential, and is therefore sensitive to Higgs-portal, gauge and Yukawa couplings in BSM scenarios; this enables quantitative GW–collider complementarity, particularly in models with dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking (such as composite Higgs setups) where enhanced self-interactions can strengthen the transition and may correlate with additional scalar/DM states. Building on earlier studies [118,119,120], recently supercooled phase transitions in conformal extensions (including Majoron/seesaw realizations) and in conformal dark sectors were investigated, confronting them with current LVK/PTA data and forecasting the reach of LISA/ET [121,122,123]. Correlated cosmological relics were further explored, such as primordial black holes and primordial magnetic fields [124]. A combined GW–collider–cosmology analysis is thus essential.
- GW probes for light and ultra-light DM models (ALPs, specifically Majoron/Axion-like). The GW spectrum measurements provide a source of information about new physics models featuring very light pseudo-Goldstone (axion-like) scalar states that, under certain conditions, may play the role of DM. The presence of such states may indicate an approximate global continuous symmetry. This is, for instance, the case of the family symmetry at high scales that is both spontaneously and explicitly broken at low scales. Despite a light pseudo-Goldstone mass, the presence of such states affects the vacuum structure and can lead to additional phase-transition patterns that otherwise would not exist [119]. We may pose a question about a possible complementarity of the GW data with the direct DM detection experiment data, such as the recent hint from the XENON1T measurement.
- GW probes for neutrino mass generation mechanisms. Future GW measurement can probe the scale of Majorana neutrinos and lepton-number breaking patterns, hence zooming into the properties of the neutrino spectrum—see e.g., Ref. [119].
- GW probes for the new physics energy scale in BSM scenarios. Probing the high-scale phase transitions in LR-symmetry/family symmetry/GUT theory models—see e.g., Refs. [125,126,127]—can be envisaged. This would offer a way to disentangle different new physics scenarios beyond the reach of particle collider measurements.
- GW probes for PBHs. Future GW astronomy will open a new window into the early Universe by probing two key signatures: high-redshift black hole merger events and the stochastic GW background over a wide range of frequencies. The statistical properties and frequency content of these signals will enable us to conduct a powerful test of the existence of PBHs [128,129,130,131], potentially distinguishing them from their astrophysical counterparts.
4.1. GW Probes for Higgs Sector Couplings in SM and Beyond
4.2. GW Probes for PBHs
5. Machine Learning Applied to Particle Physics
5.1. Computational Complexity Theory
5.2. Machine Learning: Perspectives and Approaches
- Machine learning as probabilistic inference. A first perspective is that machine learning tasks are often tasks involving probabilistic inference of the learned model from the training data and prior probabilities. In fact, the two primary principles for deriving learning algorithms are the probabilistic principles of Maximum Likelihood Estimation—in which the learner seeks the hypothesis that makes the observed training data most probable—and Maximum a Posteriori Probability (MAP) estimation—in which the learner seeks the most probable hypothesis, given the training data plus a prior probability distribution over possible hypotheses. The perspective that machine learning algorithms are performing probabilistic inference is very compatible with the perspective we are going to mention, according to which machine learning algorithms are solving an optimization problem. In most cases, deriving a learning algorithm based on the MLE or MAP principle involves first defining an objective function in terms of the parameters of the hypotheses and the training data, then applying an optimization algorithm to solve for the hypothesis parameter values that maximize or minimize this objective.
- Machine learning as optimization. Machine learning tasks are often formulated as optimization problems. For example, in training a neural network containing millions of parameters, we typically frame the learning task as one of discovering the parameter values that optimize a particular objective function such as minimizing the sum of squared errors in the network outputs compared to the desired outputs given by training examples. When machine learning tasks are framed as optimization problems, the learning algorithm is often itself an optimization algorithm. Sometimes we use general-purpose optimization methods such as gradient descent (e.g., to train neural networks) or quadratic programming (e.g., to train Support Vector Machines). In other cases, we can derive and use more efficient methods for the specific learning task at hand (e.g., methods to calculate the maximum likelihood estimates of parameters for a naïve Bayes classifier).
- Machine learning as parametric programming. Another perspective we can take on the same learning programs is that they are choosing parameter values that define a function or a computer program written in a programming language, which is defined by their hypothesis space. For example, we can view deep neural networks as implementing parameterized programs, where the learned network parameters instantiate a specific program out of a set of potential programs predefined by the given network structure. As we move from simple feedforward networks to networks with recurrent (feedback) structure and with trainable memory units, the set of representable (and potentially learnable) programs grows in complexity.
- A parametric approach assumes the functional form (i.e., the shape) of the mathematical function f by construction. That is, it assumes that the function belongs to a particular family of mathematical functions such as, for instance, linear, quadratic, etc. The goal is now to determine the coefficients (parameters) of the different components of the function on the basis of the training data. More specifically, a parametric model will assume some finite set of parameters . Given the parameters, , future predictions X will be independent of the observed data . Therefore, captures everything there is to know about the observed data D. As a consequence, the complexity of the model is bounded even if the amount of data is unbounded. Yet, parametric models suffer from being poorly flexible to the extent that the shape of the function is defined a priori. Linear regression is an example of such an approach. It is assumed that the input and output follow the relation and the goal is to determine the values of the parameters, i.e., the coefficients and . Note that, in this case, the function belongs to the family of linear functions and different values of the parameters will generate different linear functions. The main task of a parametric approach is equivalent to estimating the vector of parameters. Logistic regression, k-means and hidden Markov models are all examples of parametric models.
- Non-parametric models assume that the data distribution cannot be defined in terms of such a finite set of parameters. But they can often be defined by assuming an infinite-dimensional . Usually we think of as a function. The amount of information that can capture about the observed data D can grow as the amount of data grows. This makes them more flexible. In this sense, a non-parametric approach does not make any assumption about the functional form; it is very flexible and can take any shape. It could be a very complex function, a combination of an extremely large number of non-linear functions, a rule like a large margin boundary, or a simple estimation of density or discriminant outcome in the desired input space. Gaussian approaches, k-nearest neighbor and decision trees are examples of non-parametric approaches. The term non-parametric does not mean that such models are completely lacking parameters, but that the number of parameters is flexible and not fixed a priori.
- Finally, semi-parametric modeling is a hybrid of the parametric and non-parametric approaches of statistical models. It may appear at first that semi-parametric models include non-parametric models; however, semi-parametric models are considered to be “smaller” than a completely non-parametric model because we are often interested only in the finite-dimensional component of . By contrast, in non-parametric models, the primary interest is in estimating the infinite-dimensional parameter. In result, the estimation is statistically harder in non-parametric models compared to semi-parametric models. While parametric models are easy to understand and easy to work with, they fail to give a fair representation of what is happening in the real world. Semi-parametric models allow us to have the best of both worlds: a model that is understandable and offers a fair representation of the messiness that is involved in real life. Semi-parametric regression models take many different structures. One is a form of regression analysis in which a part of the predictors does not take pre-determined forms, and the other part takes known forms with the response. For example, may be known (assume linear) and is unknown. In this case, the semi-parametric form will be written as . In this setting, the relationship between and the response is linear, but the relationship between the response and is unknown. The most illustrative example is the scatter plot smoother. The approach is model-based and utilizes the basic principles like Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE). Mixed model-based smoother can be extended to a full hierarchical Bayesian model when analyzed via Markov chain Monte Carlo [185].
5.3. Explainable AI and Knowledge Discovery
5.4. Collider Physics Application
- 1.
- Reliable models have been developed to simulate nuclear interactions in contexts such as ion therapy, including the Boltzmann–Langevin One Body (BLOB) model or efforts in QCD matter at extreme conditions [195], which describes heavy-ion interactions up to a few hundreds of MeV [206]. In this approach, the final state is represented as a probability density function (PDF) describing the likelihood of finding a nucleon at a given point in phase space. Due to the large computational cost of BLOB simulations, deep-learning-based emulation strategies have been developed [188]. These methods rely on the discretization of the PDF and the training of a Variational Auto-Encoder to reproduce it. In particular, Ref. [188] demonstrates the successful emulation of BLOB PDFs for 12C–12C interactions at 62 MeV, achieving distributions consistent with the original simulations at negligible computational cost. Furthermore, enhanced control over the generation process has been obtained by reorganizing the VAE latent space to explicitly encode the dependence on the impact parameter, together with the training of a dedicated classifier. As discussed in the work program section, this strategy is not restricted to the energy range for which it was originally developed and can be generalized to other physical scenarios.
- 2.
- A second major development is the deployment of machine learning algorithms at the trigger level, including implementations on FPGAs and heterogeneous hardware. At the LHC and future colliders, ML-enhanced triggers enable real-time event selection under severe latency and bandwidth constraints, allowing rare or unconventional signatures to be retained already at the earliest stages of data acquisition. Techniques such as quantized neural networks, graph-based inference, and low-latency autoencoders have been successfully ported to FPGA architectures [207,208], demonstrating that sophisticated ML models can operate reliably in real-time experimental environments. This development is of direct relevance for multi-messenger experiments, where similar constraints arise in radio telescopes, gravitational-wave interferometers, and extensive air-shower arrays, and where rapid identification of candidate events is essential for coordinated follow-up observations.
- 3.
- Another important class of applications concerns model-agnostic searches for new physics, where the goal is to detect deviations from the Standard Model without committing to specific signal hypotheses. Recently proposed approaches [209] based on anomaly-detection frameworks exploit unsupervised or weakly supervised learning to identify statistically significant excesses in suitably learned feature spaces, rather than in predefined kinematic variables. These methods are particularly powerful in scenarios involving composite dark matter, hidden sectors, or long-lived particles, where the signal morphology may not be well captured by traditional analyses. Crucially, the same philosophy can be applied to multi-messenger data sets, for instance, to search for unexpected spectral or temporal features in cosmic-ray fluxes, neutrino events, or stochastic gravitational-wave backgrounds, without relying on detailed signal templates.
- 4.
- A further application concerns the assessment of hadronic interaction models used in air-shower reconstruction from very-high-energy cosmic-ray observations, namely SIBYLL 2.3c [210], QGSJet II-04 [211], and EPOS-LHC [212]. A systematic scan of the corresponding output spaces can be performed using graph neural networks, which have already proven effective in the classification and regression of hadronic jets at the LHC. Compared to CNN-based approaches, GNNs naturally overcome the requirement of data structured on regular 2D or 3D grids and can be applied directly to generic three-dimensional point clouds without imposing geometric symmetries. Similar techniques have been used at ATLAS to analyze atypical hadronic jets, such as those arising from displaced decays of long-lived neutral particles in hidden-sector or hidden-valley models. This approach appears particularly well suited for experiments such as LHAASO and can be further optimized for real-time and trigger-level applications on high-speed processors. Methods based on explainable AI can also be integrated to optimize model performance and parameter tuning, enabling a comparative assessment of different hadronic models within a unified framework.
- 5.
- Assessment of the three hadronic models hitherto applied to air-shower reconstructions from VHECR observations, i.e., Sybil 2.3c [210], QGSJet II-04 [211] and EPOS-LHC [212], and consequently a scan of the output space, can be achieved within this perspective applying peep neural networks based on graph-neural network already used for classification problems and regression of hadronic showers (jet) of several different types at LHC. This procedure would allow us to solve the problem related to convolutional neural networks (CNN) implemented in deep learning visual applications, of obtaining data structured in symmetric meshes (2D and 3D pixels). Furthermore, the same procedure could be applied to any 3D point clouds, without any specified request for geometric symmetry associated to the detectors. Atypical hadronic jets at ATLAS have already been analyzed by adopting these techniques; this encodes, for instance, hadronic jets produced by the displaced decays of long lifetime neutral particles in hidden models, including either the hidden sector or the “hidden valley”. This situation seems particularly suitable to be adapted to the case of LHAASO, and one can naturally adapt these algorithms to high-speed processors for trigger/real-time analysis applications. Methods connected to explainable AI can also be applied to this purpose, in a different way than standard AI models. Therefore, an optimization strategy can be achieved, while making use of parameter tuning, through the synthesis of the best performing tCNN adapted to the trigger FPGA, as applied to air-shower reconstruction, making use of the three different hadronic models previously highlighted.
- 6.
- A general and essential feature of machine learning applications to collider physics is the ability to handle high-dimensional ensembles of data and to perform fast, real-time processing. A broad review of deep learning applications to LHC physics can be found in [193]. Techniques developed for collider experiments can therefore be directly transferred to the reconstruction of air showers, combining information from Cherenkov detectors, as well as electronic and muonic channels. Deep-learning methods are particularly effective in extracting physical quantities from large data sets when detailed analytical models are unavailable, due to complex detector geometries or large experimental uncertainties. In this respect, deep neural networks act as universal approximators, capable of learning hierarchical representations of the data. Each layer of the network performs a transformation that progressively builds more abstract and informative representations, enabling the extraction of relevant physical features directly from experimental observations.
5.5. Illustrative Multi-Messenger Machine Learning Pipeline
- 1.
- gamma-ray spectra associated with dark matter annihilation or decay;
- 2.
- high-energy neutrino fluxes compatible with IceCube-like sensitivities;
- 3.
- stochastic gravitational-wave spectra generated by first-order phase transitions.
- realistic mock data generation for each experimental channel,
- detector response modeling,
- training and validation on statistically meaningful datasets,
- evaluation of parameter reconstruction accuracy and uncertainty calibration.
5.6. Spanning the Parameter Space of Dark Matter Models with ML
5.6.1. The Multi-Messenger Approach and Cross-Correlation with Other Channels
5.6.2. Interaction Networks, First Order Phase Transitions and BSM Models
5.7. Adapting Models of Particle Physics to Quantum Neural Networks
6. Cosmological Inferences from Machine Learning
- Posterior estimation is data-driven, relying on accurate training simulations ;
- Forward models (Boltzmann solvers, N-body simulations) are replaced or accelerated by differentiable emulators;
- Likelihood-free inference replaces Gaussian assumptions with flexible neural mappings.
- 1.
- Calibration of Uncertainties: ML posteriors must be statistically calibrated to avoid overconfident predictions.
- 2.
- Explainability: Black-box networks can obscure physical interpretability. Work on physics-informed architectures and interpretable flows is ongoing.
- 3.
- Generalization: Trained networks must generalize across cosmologies; adversarial training or Bayesian ensembles may help.
- 4.
- Posterior consistency: For ML-based posteriors , we require convergence in probability to the true posterior as (in sample size), which remains an open theoretical problem.
7. Future Perspectives
- 1.
- development of joint multi-messenger pipelines combining data from LHAASO, IceCube, Fermi-LAT and gravitational-wave observatories;
- 2.
- implementation of machine learning frameworks for global parameter inference across heterogeneous datasets;
- 3.
- systematic exploration of benchmark dark matter models within this unified framework;
- 4.
- application of anomaly-detection techniques for model-independent searches;
- 5.
- investigation of next-generation methods, including physics-informed and quantum-enhanced machine learning.
- Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the processes of high-energy neutrinos (with energies in the range from 10 to 1000 TeV) scattering on the DM particles—with the production in the final state of both electronic and muon neutrinos and/or the acceleration of the target (so-called scattered-up reactions)—can be provided. In the scatterings, charged components of the hyperpion triplet can be produced with subsequent decay. The possibility of registering the products of such reactions at the LHAASO and IceCube is then a direction to be investigated.
- An in-depth study of the processes of high-energy proton and photon interactions with the DM in the Galaxy halo can be carried out. These reactions can result in the production of charged partners of the DM particles, and their decays can generate neutral stable particles together with high-energy fluxes of electrons, positrons and neutrinos. These fast secondary particles can produce specific EAS with a low muon content accompanied by neutrinos of various flavors and/or heavy neutral stable particles.
- The dependence of the secondary neutrino and lepton fluxes on the spatial distribution of the DM in the Galaxy can be considered in detail. In particular, one can study the scattering of cosmic rays by inhomogeneities in the Galactic halo. This investigation can be considered in connection with the problem of studying the internal dynamics of DM in the Galaxy.
- Since the hypercolor model has a whole set of H-hadrons that are located higher in mass than the stable DM particles, there should also be excited unstable states of di-hyperquarks. They can also manifest themselves in scattering reactions. To clarify the SM extension type, the study of the unstable H-hadrons and the analysis of their excitation channels and decay modes are very important. Signals of such decays will also be fluxes of ordinary (decaying) mesons, accompanied possibly by stable neutral heavy DM objects. Consequently, one can expect the appearance of EAS products, rare and specific in composition and angular distribution, which can be detected at the LHAASO, HAWK and HESS facilities.
- For a complete mass spectrum study in the H-color model, it is beneficial to consider vacuum condensate structures in the SM extensions with additional fermions. In a sense, the model contains a kind of QCD duplication but with a smaller number of quark flavors. The symmetry violation also requires the introduction of an H-quark vacuum condensate along with a nonzero vacuum condensate of H-gluons. Thus, it becomes possible to study the H-hadron characteristics using a previously unknown analog of the QCD sum rules. At the same time, the presence of a certain hierarchy in the structure of vacuum condensates of H-color models, as well as the stability of their vacuum state, can be also investigated. For issues related to the conditions for the applicability of these methods, the possibility to extract information from new types of sum rules and the data on the masses of new heavy states shall be investigated within this framework.
- Interaction processes (inelastic and quasi-elastic scattering) of high-energy particles of dark and ordinary matter can be investigated, and detailed analyses of the possibilities to register the heavy metastable hadrons signals can be carried out: the conditions and channels for the production of new heavy hadrons, the types and intensity of their annihilation signals shall be considered in detail.
- It is also essential to carry out a study of the DM halo interaction with the gas-dusty and solid components of the Galaxy. Such an analysis may allow us to obtain (after a quantitative consideration and classification of types of signals) additional information on the possible detection of DM particles.
- The basis for a detailed study of the conditions and specificity of the luminosity of hadronic DM is an analysis of the hyperfine splitting between excited states. This is crucial to characterize the possible observed manifestations of DM both in the hadronic and in the hypercolor scenario. For this purpose, the character of the splitting and the conditions for the metastability of excited states of new hadrons are equally important for various scenarios of the SM extensions considered.
- Enhanced VAE techniques currently under development allow us to structure the latent space and control it much better than in previous studies [270,271,272]. Elements of the latent space that are unique will be orthogonal to the different latent variables, hence allowing for more efficient simulations. These techniques can be applied to multiple contexts, without being limited to the low-energy regime investigated so far. Instead, they belong to a framework of generative deep learning that is useful to simulate any kind of process. While it is possible to use a deep learning approach to emulate a model developed to simulate nuclear reactions in any energy regime, toolkits implementing the generation part in C++ must still be developed, and then interfaced with a common Monte Carlo toolkit such as Geant4.
- Tests can be carried out employing gradient boosted decision trees (XGBoost), Gaussian processes based on Bayesian regression, deep neural networks (DNN) and convolutional neural networks (CNN). Improved sensitivities by a factor of 2 to 5 in XGBoost can be achieved within several models—see e.g., Ref. [191]. These preliminary results can be consolidated with a systematic comparison of the methods implemented, and with related tests of their robustness against input variations. In particular, in order to overcome possible biases, generative adversarial networks [190] will be used to study the dependencies on simulated Monte Carlo (MC) samples of the training processes. Concerning the issues related to explainable AI in air-shower reconstructions, studies may be developed that are based on convolutional neural network (CNN) for image classification that are trained to distinguish background processes from signals that can be used to map clusters of hadrons (jets) in 3D. This methodology has already been checked against overtraining, ensuring that an accuracy above 90% can be achieved. This is actually susceptible to factor 2–3 improvements with respect to previous methods [273]. Along this direction one can also adapt Graph Neural Network (GNN) techniques [274], hence enhancing sensitivities to new physics through machine learning techniques, while maintaining the transparency of the involved section processes. Thus, the implementation of explainability becomes crucial to ensure the correct physical interpretation and the scientific consistency of results that are derived.
- A novel computational framework based on the state of the art of deep learning techniques can be applied to the study of cosmological phase transitions induced by thermal corrections that may leave gravitational footprints in the form of a stochastic GW background. Such a GW background may carry imprints of phase transitions above the electroweak scale, offering access to physics beyond the reach of collider experiments. It is possible to interface model building and Monte Carlo software tools while applying Deep Learning techniques in order to combine all available theoretical and phenomenological information. This will include an option to evaluate the impact of collider constraints or infer predictions for the primordial GW stochastic background. This knowledge can be combined, in this way, with the experimental measurements of the triple-Higgs coupling, to help point the path toward a consistent theory of the fundamental interactions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Planck Collaboration. Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A1. [Google Scholar]
- ACT Collaboration. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 Maps and Cosmological Parameters. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 12, 047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Li, S.-Y.; Liu, Y.; Li, Y.-P.; Cai, Y.; Li, M.; Zhao, G.-B.; Liu, C.-Z.; Li, Z.-W.; Xu, H.; et al. AliCPT: A ground-based CMB polarization experiment. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2019, 6, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Addazi, A.; Belotsky, K.; Beylin, V.; Cirelli, M.; DiSciascio, G.; Esmaili, A.; Fornengo, N.; Gan, Q.; Kachekriess, M.; Khlopov, M.; et al. Dark Matter Searches for Heavy Dark Matter with LHAASO. In Proceedings of the 37th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2021), Virtual, 12–23 July 2021; p. 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HAWC Collaboration. The HAWC Gamma-Ray Observatory: Design, Calibration, and Operation. Astrophys. J. 2017, 843, 39. [Google Scholar]
- H.E.S.S. Collaboration. Observations of the Crab nebula with H.E.S.S. Astron. Astrophys. 2006, 457, 899–915. [Google Scholar]
- IceCube Collaboration. Observation of High-Energy Astrophysical Neutrinos in Three Years of IceCube Data. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 101101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Evans, L.; Bryant, P. LHC Machine. J. Instrum. 2008, 3, S08001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apollinari, G.; Béjar Alonso, I.; Brüning, O.; Fessia, P.; Lamont, M.; Rossi, L.; Tavian, L. High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical Design Report. CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 2017, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEPC Study Group. CEPC Conceptual Design Report: Volume 2—Physics and Detector. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1811.10545. [Google Scholar]
- LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 061102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amaro-Seoane, P.; Audley, H.; Babak, S.; Baker, J.; Barausse, E.; Bender, P.; Berti, E.; Binetruy, P.; Born, M.; Bortoluzzi, D.; et al. Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1702.00786. [Google Scholar]
- Kawamura, S.; Ando, M.; Seto, N.; Sato, S.; Nakamura, T.; Tsubono, K.; Kanda, N.; Tanaka, T.; Yokoyama, J.; Funaki, I.; et al. The Japanese space gravitational wave antenna: DECIGO. Class. Quantum Gravity 2011, 28, 094011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowder, J.; Cornish, N.J. Beyond LISA: Exploring future gravitational wave missions. Phys. Rev. D 2005, 72, 083005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nan, R.; Li, D.; Jin, C.; Wang, Q.; Zhu, L.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, H.; Yue, Y.; Qian, L. The Five-Hundred-Meter Aperture Spherical Radio Telescope (FAST) Project. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2011, 20, 989–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dewdney, P.E.; Hall, P.J.; Schilizzi, R.T.; Lazio, T.J.L.W. The Square Kilometre Array. Proc. IEEE 2009, 97, 1482–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hobbs, G.; Archibald, A.; Arzoumanian, Z.; Backer, D.; Bailes, M.; Bhat, N.D.R.; Burgay, M.; Burke-Spolaor, S.; Champion, D.; Cognard, I.; et al. The International Pulsar Timing Array project: Using pulsars as a gravitational wave detector. Class. Quantum Gravity 2010, 27, 084013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Sciascio, G. The LHAASO experiment: From Gamma-Ray Astronomy to Cosmic Rays. Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 2016, 279-281, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, X.; Bi, B.Y.; Bi, X.J.; Cao, Z.; Chen, S.Z.; Chen, Y.; Chiavassa, A.; Cui, X.H.; Dai, Z.G.; della Volpe, D.; et al. The Large High Altitude Air Shower Observatory (LHAASO) Science White Paper. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1905.02773. [Google Scholar]
- Madejski, G.G.; Sikora, M. Gamma-Ray Observations of Active Galactic Nuclei. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2016, 54, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajello, M.; Baldini, L.; Ballet, J.; Bastieri, D.; Becerra Gonzalez, J.; Bellazzini, R.; Berretta, A.; Bissaldi, E.; Bonino, R.; Brill, A.; et al. The Fourth Catalog of Active Galactic Nuclei Detected by the Fermi Large Area Telescope—Data Release 3. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2022, 263, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addazi, A.; Ketov, S.; Khlopov, M.; Marciano, A. Physics of Superheavy Dark Matter in Supergravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2018, 27, 1841011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peccei, R.D.; Quinn, H.R. CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1977, 38, 1440. [Google Scholar]
- Wilczek, F. Problem of Strong p and t Invariance in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1978, 40, 279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, S. A New Light Boson? Phys. Rev. Lett. 1978, 40, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.E. Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1979, 43, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shifman, M.A.; Vainshtein, A.I.; Zakharov, V.I. Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions? Nucl. Phys. B 1980, 166, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhitnitsky, A.R. On Possible Suppression of the Axion Hadron Interactions. Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 1980, 31, 260. [Google Scholar]
- Wilczek, F. Axion and Family Symmetry Breaking. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1982, 49, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berezhiani, Z.G.; Khlopov, M.Y. The Theory of Broken Gauge Family Symmetry. Z. Für Phys. C 1991, 49, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chikashige, Y.; Mohapatra, R.N.; Peccei, R.D. Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number? Phys. Lett. B 1981, 98, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelmini, G.B.; Roncadelli, M. Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale and Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number. Phys. Lett. B 1981, 99, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berezhiani, Z. Through the Looking Glass: Alice’s Adventures in Mirror World. Eur. Phys. J. C 2016, 76, 705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witten, E. Some Properties of O(32) Superstrings. Phys. Lett. B 1984, 149, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conlon, J.P. The QCD Axion and Moduli Stabilisation. J. High Energy Phys. 2006, 05, 078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svrcek, P.; Witten, E. Axions in String Theory. J. High Energy Phys. 2006, 06, 051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peccei, R.D.; Quinn, H.R. Constraints Imposed by CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons. Phys. Rev. D 1977, 16, 1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dicus, D.A.; Kolb, E.W.; Teplitz, V.L.; Wagoner, R.V. Astrophysical Bounds on Axions. Phys. Rev. D 1978, 18, 1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raffelt, G.; Stodolsky, L. Mixing of the Photon with Low-Mass Particles. Phys. Rev. D 1988, 37, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andriamonje, S.; Aune, S.; Autiero, D.; Barth, K.; Belov, A.; Beltrán, B.; Bräuninger, H.; Carmona, J.M.; Cebrián, S.; Collar, J.I.; et al. (CAST Collaboration) An Improved Limit on the Axion-Photon Coupling from the CAST Experiment. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2007, 0704, 010. [Google Scholar]
- De Angelis, A.; Roncadelli, M.; Mansutti, O. Evidence for a New Light Boson from Cosmological Gamma-Ray Propagation? Phys. Rev. D 2007, 76, 121301. [Google Scholar]
- De Angelis, A.; Mansutti, O.; Persic, M.; Roncadelli, M. Photon Propagation and the VHE Gamma-Ray Spectrum of Blazars. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2009, 394, L21. [Google Scholar]
- Mirizzi, A.; Montanino, D. Stochastic Conversion of TeV Photons into Axion-Like Particles in Extragalactic Magnetic Fields. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2009, 12, 004. [Google Scholar]
- Simet, M.; Hooper, D.; Serpico, P.D. The Milky Way as a Kiloparsec-Scale Axion Detector. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 77, 063001. [Google Scholar]
- Mirizzi, A.; Raffelt, G.G.; Serpico, P.D. Photon–Axion Conversion as a Mechanism for Supernova Gamma-Ray Emission. Lect. Notes Phys. 2008, 741, 115. [Google Scholar]
- Nikishov, A. Absorption of High-Energy Photons in the Universe. Sov. Phys. JETP 1962, 14, 393. [Google Scholar]
- Fazio, G.G.; Stecker, F.W. Predicted High Energy Break in the Isotropic Gamma-Ray Spectrum. Nature 1970, 226, 135. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Aharonian, F. Very High Energy Cosmic Gamma Radiation; World Scientific: Singapore, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Dolgov, A.; Freese, K. Calculation of particle production by Nambu-Goldstone bosons with application to inflation reheating and baryogenesis. Phys. Rev. D 1995, 51, 2693–2702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dolgov, A.; Freese, K.; Rangarajan, R.; Srednicki, M. Baryogenesis during reheating in natural inflation and comments on spontaneous baryogenesis. Phys. Rev. D 1997, 56, 6155–6165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, A.G.; Kaplan, D.B. Spontaneous Baryogenesis. Nucl. Phys. B 1988, 308, 913–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeldovich, Y.B.; Novikov, I.D. The Hypothesis of Cores Retarded during Expansion and the Hot Cosmological Model. Astron. Zhurnal 1967, 10, 602. [Google Scholar]
- Hawking, S.W. Gravitationally Collapsed Objects of Very Low Mass. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 1971, 152, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, B.J.; Hawking, S.W. Black Holes in the Early Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 1974, 168, 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawking, S.W.; Moss, I.G.; Stewart, J.M. Bubble Collisions in the Very Early Universe. Phys. Rev. D 1982, 26, 2681–2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, B.; Kühnel, F. Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Recent Developments. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2020, 70, 355–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carr, B.; Kohri, K.; Sendouda, Y.; Yokoyama, J. Constraints on Primordial Black Holes. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2021, 84, 116902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Luca, V.; Desjacques, V.; Franciolini, G.; Riotto, A. The Clustering Evolution of Primordial Black Holes. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 11, 028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belotsky, K.M.; Dokuchaev, V.I.; Eroshenko, Y.N.; Esipova, E.A.; Khlopov, M.Y.; Khromykh, L.A.; Kirillov, A.A.; Nikulin, V.V.; Rubin, S.G.; Svadkovsky, I.V. Clusters of Primordial Black Holes. Eur. Phys. J. C 2019, 79, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berezin, V.; Dokuchaev, V.; Eroshenko, Y.; Smirnov, A. Formation and Clustering of Primordial Black Holes in Brans-Dicke Theory. Universe 2020, 6, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Bellido, J.; Clesse, S. Constraints from Microlensing Experiments on Clustered Primordial Black Holes. Phys. Dark Universe 2018, 19, 144–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calcino, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Davis, T.M. Updating the MACHO Fraction of the Milky Way Dark Halo with Improved Mass Models. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018, 479, 2889–2905. [Google Scholar]
- Hawking, S.W. Black Holes from Cosmic Strings. Phys. Lett. B 1989, 231, 237–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Bellido, J.; Linde, A.; Wands, D. Density perturbations and black hole formation in hybrid inflation. Phys. Rev. D 1996, 54, 6040–6058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rubin, S.G.; Sakharov, A.S.; Khlopov, M.Y. The Formation of Primary Galactic Nuclei during Phase Transitions in the Early Universe. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 2001, 92, 921–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, S.G.; Sakharov, A.S.; Khlopov, M.Y. Black Holes, Gravitational Waves and Fundamental Physics: A Roadmap. Class. Quantum Gravity 2019, 36, 143001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nikulin, V.V.; Krasnov, M.A.; Rubin, S.G. Compact Extra Dimensions as the Source of Primordial Black Holes. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 2022, 9, 927144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capozziello, S.; De Laurentis, M. The Dark Matter Problem from f(R) Gravity Viewpoint. Ann. Der Phys. 2012, 524, 545–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Felice, A.; Tsujikawa, S. f(R) Theories. Living Rev. Relativ. 2010, 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Capozziello, S.; De Laurentis, M. Extended Theories of Gravity. Phys. Rep. 2011, 509, 167–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krasnov, M.; Belotsky, K. Possibility of Weakening the Constraint on Abundance of Primordial Black Holes from Eridanus II. Phys. At. Nucl. 2023, 86, 1533–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belotsky, K.; Krasnov, M.; Pugachev, S. Investigation of the Dynamics of Interaction of a Cluster of Primordial Black Holes with Stellar Cluster. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2024, 33, 2340010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasechnik, R.; Beylin, V.; Kuksa, V.; Vereshkov, G. Chiral-Symmetric Technicolor with Standard Model Higgs Boson. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 88, 075009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volchanskiy, N.; Kuksa, V.; Beylin, V. Models of Hypercolor Based on Symplectic Gauge Group with Three Heavy Vectorlike Hyperquarks. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2018, 28, 1941002. [Google Scholar]
- Pasechnik, R.; Beylin, V.; Kuksa, V.; Vereshkov, G. Scalar Technibaryon Dark Matter from Vector-Like SU(2) Technicolor. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2016, 31, 1650036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuksa, V.; Beylin, V. The Scenario with Hadronic Dark Matter. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2021, 30, 2140006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aalbers, J.; Akerib, D.S.; Akerlof, C.W.; Al Musalhi, A.K.; Alder, F.; Alqahtani, A.; Alsum, S.K.; Amarasinghe, C.S.; Ames, A.; Ames, A.; et al. (LUX-ZEPLIN Collaboration) First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2023, 131, 041002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aprile, E.; Aalbers, J.; Agostini, F.; Alfonsi, M.; Amaro, F.D.; Anthony, M.; Arneodo, F.; Barrow, P.; Baudis, L.; Baudis, L.; et al. (XENON Collaboration) First Dark Matter Search Results from the XENON1T Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 181301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuksa, V.; Beylin, V. Heavy Quark Symmetry and Fine Structure of Spectrum of Hadronic Dark Matter. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylin, V.; Kuksa, V. Interaction of Hadronic Dark Matter with Nucleons and Leptons. Symmetry 2020, 12, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuksa, V.; Beylin, V. Hyperfine Splitting of Excited States of New Heavy Hadrons and Low-Energy Interaction of Hadronic Dark Matter with Photons, Nucleons and Leptons. Universe 2020, 6, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylin, V.; Bezuglov, M.; Kuksa, V.; Volchanskiy, N. An Analysis of a Minimal Vectorlike Extension of the Standard Model. Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017, 2017, 1765340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylin, V.; Bezuglov, M.; Kuksa, V.; Tretiakov, E. Quasielastic Lepton Scattering off Two-Component Dark Matter in Hypercolor Model. Symmetry 2020, 12, 708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylin, V.; Bezuglov, M. Possible Manifestations of Transitions within Dark Matter Structure. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2021, 30, 2140009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylin, V.; Bezuglov, M. Can the Multicomponent Dark Matter be Visible due to Inner Luminescence? Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 2023, 20, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beylin, V.; Khlopov, M.; Kuksa, V.; Volchanskiy, N. New Physics of Strong Interaction and Dark Universe. Universe 2020, 6, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giudice, G.F.; McCullough, M. A Clockwork Theory. J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 02, 036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patel, K.M. Clockwork Mechanism for Flavor Hierarchies. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 96, 115013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M.Y. Fundamental Particle Structure in the Cosmological Dark Matter. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2013, 28, 1330042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aprile, E.; Profumo, S. Focus on Dark Matter and Particle Physics. New J. Phys. 2009, 11, 105002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, J.L. Dark Matter Candidates from Particle Physics and Methods of Detection. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 48, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M. Cosmological Reflection of Particle Symmetry. Symmetry 2016, 8, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M.Y.; Kouvaris, C. Strong Interactive Massive Particles from a Strong Coupled Theory. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 77, 065002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M.Y.; Kouvaris, C. Composite Dark Matter from a Model with Composite Higgs Boson. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 78, 065040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glashow, S.L. A Sinister Extension of the Standard Model to SU(3) × SU(2) × SU(2) × U(1). arXiv 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fargion, D.; Khlopov, M.Y. Tera-Leptons’ Shadows over Sinister Universe. Gravit. Cosmol. 2013, 19, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M.Y. Composite Dark Matter from 4th Generation. JETP Lett. 2006, 83, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fargion, D.; Khlopov, M.; Stephan, C.A. Cold dark matter by heavy double charged leptons? Class. Quantum Gravity 2006, 23, 7305–7354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M. Dark Atom Solution for Puzzles of Direct Dark Matter Searches. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1312, 012011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeldovich, Y.B.; Khlopov, M.Y. Mass of Neutrino in Particle Physics and Cosmology of Early Universe. Sov. Phys. Uspekhi 1981, 24, 755–774. [Google Scholar]
- Blinnikov, S.I.; Khlopov, M.Y. On the Possible Signatures of Mirror Particles. Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 1982, 36, 472–474. [Google Scholar]
- Blinnikov, S.I.; Khlopov, M.Y. On the Possible Astronomical Effects of Mirror Particles. Sov. Astron. 1983, 27, 371–375. [Google Scholar]
- Khlopov, M.Y.; Beskin, G.M.; Bochkarev, N.G.; Pustilnik, L.A.; Pustilnik, S.A. Observational Physics of Mirror World. Sov. Astron. 1991, 35, 21–30. [Google Scholar]
- Berezhiani, Z.; Comelli, D.; Villante, F. The Early Mirror Universe: Inflation, Baryogenesis, Nucleosynthesis and Dark Matter. Phys. Lett. B 2001, 503, 362–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berezhiani, Z. Mirror World and Its Cosmological Consequences. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 2004, 19, 3775–3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozza, C.; Calivà, A.; De Caro, A.; De Gruttola, D.; De Pasquale, S.; Fusco, L.A.; Messuti, G.; Poirè, C.; Scarpetta, S.; Virgili, T. Generative Artificial Intelligence for Air Shower Simulation. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2510.26316. [Google Scholar]
- Beylin, V. Neutrinos Production by Photons Scattered on the Dark Matter. In Proceedings of the 25th Workshop “What Comes Beyond the Standard Model”, Bled, Slovenia, 4–10 July 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Abdul Halim, A.; Abreu, P.; Aglietta, M.; Allekotte, I.; Almeida Cheminant, K.; Almela, A.; Aloisio, R.; Alvarez-Muñiz, J.; Ammerman Yebra, J.; Ammerman Yebra, J.; et al. (Pierre Auger Collaboration) Inference of the Mass Composition of Cosmic Rays with Energies from 1018.5 to 1020 eV Using the Pierre Auger Observatory and Deep Learning. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2025, 134, 021001. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Adriani, O.; Barbarino, G.C.; Bazilevskaya, G.A.; Bellotti, R.; Boezio, M.; Bogomolov, E.A.; Bonechi, L.; Bongi, M.; Bonvicini, V.; Bottai, S.; et al. An anomalous positron abundance in cosmic rays with energies 1.5–100 GeV. arXiv 2008, arXiv:0810.4995. [Google Scholar]
- AMS Collaboration. High Statistics Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5–500 GeV with the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the International Space Station. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 121101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ackermann, M.; Ajello, M.; Allafort, A.; Atwood, W.B.; Baldini, L.; Barbiellini, G.; Bastieri, D.; Bechtol, K.; Bellazzini, R.; Bellazzini, R.; et al. (Fermi LAT Collaboration) Measurement of Separate Cosmic-Ray Electron and Positron Spectra with the Fermi Large Area Telescope. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 011103. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- DAMPE Collaboration. Direct detection of a break in the teraelectronvolt cosmic-ray spectrum of electrons and positrons. Nature 2017, 552, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khlopov, M.Y. Fundamentals of Cosmic Particle Physics; CISP-Springer: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Neronov, A.; Semikoz, D. LHAASO Sensitivity for Diffuse Gamma-Ray Signals from the Galaxy. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2001.11881. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, P.; Long, A.J.; Wang, L.T. Probing the Electroweak Phase Transition with Higgs Factories and Gravitational Waves. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 075008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, A.; Ghosh, T.; Guo, H.K.; Sinha, K. Resonant Di-Higgs Production at Gravitational Wave Benchmarks: A Collider Study using Machine Learning. J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 12, 070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alves, A.; Gonçalves, D.; Ghosh, T.; Guo, H.K.; Sinha, K. Di-Higgs Production in the 4b Channel and Gravitational Wave Complementarity. J. High Energy Phys. 2020, 03, 053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R. Probing multi-step electroweak phase transition with multi-peaked primordial gravitational waves spectra. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 2004, 036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addazi, A.; Marcianò, A.; Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R.; Srivastava, R.; Valle, J.W.F. Gravitational footprints of massive neutrinos and lepton number breaking. Phys. Lett. B 2020, 807, 135577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieu, T.; Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R. Electroweak phase transitions in multi-Higgs models: The case of Trinification-inspired THDSM. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2018, 1807, 014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, J.; Marfatia, D.; Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R. Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions in conformal Majoron models of neutrino mass. J. High Energy Phys. 2025, 02, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, J.; Marfatia, D.; Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R. Supercooled phase transitions in conformal dark sectors explain NANOGrav data. Phys. Lett. B 2025, 869, 139829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertenstam, M.; Finetti, M.; Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R.; Rathsman, J. Gravitational waves from color restoration in a leptoquark model of radiative neutrino masses. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2025, 08, 077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balaji, S.; Gonçalves, J.; Marfatia, D.; Morais, A.P.; Pasechnik, R. Primordial black holes and magnetic fields in conformal neutrino mass models. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2025, 10, 064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addazi, A.; Marcianò, A.; Pasechnik, R. Probing Trans-electroweak First Order Phase Transitions from Gravitational Waves. Physics 2019, 1, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camargo-Molina, J.E.; Morais, A.P.; Ordell, A.; Pasechnik, R.; Wessén, J. Scale hierarchies, symmetry breaking and particle spectra in SU(3)-family extended SUSY trinification. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 035041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camargo-Molina, J.E.; Morais, A.P.; Ordell, A.; Pasechnik, R.; Sampaio, M.O.P.; Wessén, J. Reviving trinification models through an E6-extended supersymmetric GUT. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 075031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, K.K.Y.; Franciolini, G.; Berti, E.; Pani, P.; Riotto, A.; Vitale, S. Constraining High-redshift Stellar-mass Primordial Black Holes with Next-generation Ground-based Gravitational-wave Detectors. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 933, L41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ng, K.K.Y.; Goncharov, B.; Chen, S.; Borhanian, S.; Dupletsa, U.; Franciolini, G.; Branchesi, M.; Harms, J.; Maggiore, M.; Riotto, A.; et al. Measuring properties of primordial black hole mergers at cosmological distances: Effect of higher order modes in gravitational waves. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 107, 024041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franciolini, G.; Iacovelli, F.; Mancarella, M.; Maggiore, M.; Pani, P.; Riotto, A. Searching for primordial black holes with the Einstein Telescope: Impact of design and systematics. Phys. Rev. D 2023, 108, 043506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagui, E.; Clesse, S.; De Luca, V.; Ezquiaga, J.M.; Franciolini, G.; García-Bellido, J.; Joana, C.; Jain, R.K.; Kuroyanagi, S.; Musco, I.; et al. (LISA Cosmology Working Group) Primordial black holes and their gravitational-wave signatures. Living Rev. Relativ. 2025, 28, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bird, S.; Cholis, I.; Muñoz, J.B.; Ali-Haïmoud, Y.; Kamionkowski, M.; Kovetz, E.D.; Raccanelli, A.; Riess, A.G. Did LIGO detect dark matter? Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 201301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sasaki, M.; Suyama, T.; Tanaka, T.; Yokoyama, S. Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 117, 061101, Erratum in Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 059901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Clesse, S.; García-Bellido, J. The clustering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: Measuring their mass distribution with Advanced LIGO. Phys. Dark Universe 2017, 15, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blinnikov, S.; Dolgov, A.; Porayko, N.K.; Postnov, K. Solving puzzles of GW150914 by primordial black holes. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2016, 11, 036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali-Haïmoud, Y.; Kovetz, E.D.; Kamionkowski, M. Merger rate of primordial black-hole binaries. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 96, 123523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raidal, M.; Spethmann, C.; Vaskonen, V.; Veermäe, H. Formation and Evolution of Primordial Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2019, 02, 018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakamura, T.; Sasaki, M.; Tanaka, T.; Thorne, K.S. Gravitational waves from coalescing black hole MACHO binaries. Astrophys. J. Lett. 1997, 487, L139–L142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ioka, K.; Chiba, T.; Tanaka, T.; Nakamura, T. Black hole binary formation in the expanding universe: Three body problem approximation. Phys. Rev. D 1998, 58, 063003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franciolini, G.; Kritos, K.; Berti, E.; Silk, J. Primordial black hole mergers from three-body interactions. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 106, 083529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afshordi, N.; McDonald, P.; Spergel, D.N. Primordial black holes as dark matter: The Power spectrum and evaporation of early structures. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2003, 594, L71–L74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inman, D.; Ali-Haïmoud, Y. Early structure formation in primordial black hole cosmologies. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 083528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tkachev, M.; Pilipenko, S.; Yepes, G. Dark Matter Simulations with Primordial Black Holes in the Early Universe. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 499, 4854–4862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amin, M.A.; Delos, M.S.; Mirbabayi, M. Structure Formation with Warm White Noise: Effects of Finite Number Density and Velocity Dispersion in Particle and Wave Dark Matter. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2503.20881. [Google Scholar]
- Vaskonen, V.; Veermäe, H. Lower bound on the primordial black hole merger rate. Phys. Rev. D 2020, 101, 043015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jedamzik, K. Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter and the LIGO/Virgo observations. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 09, 022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delos, M.S.; Rantala, A.; Young, S.; Schmidt, F. Structure formation with primordial black holes: Collisional dynamics, binaries, and gravitational waves. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2024, 12, 005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V.; Belotsky, K. Influence of early dark matter haloes on the primordial black holes merger rate. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 526, 4308–4314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V. Redshift evolution of primordial black hole merger rate. Phys. Rev. D 2024, 109, 123546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V. Primordial Black Hole Binaries: The Impact of Poisson Clustering. Phys. Part. Nucl. 2025, 56, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khlopov, M.Y.; Rubin, S.G.; Sakharov, A.S. Primordial structure of massive black hole clusters. Astropart. Phys. 2005, 23, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, S.; Byrnes, C.T. Signatures of non-gaussianity in the isocurvature modes of primordial black hole dark matter. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2015, 04, 034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suyama, T.; Yokoyama, S. Clustering of primordial black holes with non-Gaussian initial fluctuations. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019, 2019, 103E02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Q.; Nakama, T.; Silk, J.; Wang, Y. Detectability of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of Massive Primordial Black Holes with Initial Clustering. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 103003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bringmann, T.; Depta, P.F.; Domcke, V.; Schmidt-Hoberg, K. Towards closing the window of primordial black holes as dark matter: The case of large clustering. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 063532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, S.; Byrnes, C.T. Initial clustering and the primordial black hole merger rate. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 03, 004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V.D.; Kirillov, A.A. The Merger Rate of Black Holes in a Primordial Black Hole Cluster. Physics 2021, 3, 372–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V.D.; Kirillov, A.A.; Belotsky, K.M. Dynamics and Merger Rate of Primordial Black Holes in a Cluster. Universe 2022, 8, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eroshenko, Y.; Stasenko, V. Gravitational Waves from the Merger of Two Primordial Black Hole Clusters. Symmetry 2023, 15, 637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V. Coalescence of Primordial Black Holes at High Redshifts with Clustering. Phys. At. Nucl. 2025, 88, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V. Merger history of clustered primordial black holes. Phys. Dark Universe 2025, 50, 102138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braglia, M.; Garcia-Bellido, J.; Kuroyanagi, S. Testing Primordial Black Holes with multi-band observations of the stochastic gravitational wave background. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 12, 012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Bellido, J.; Jaraba, S.; Kuroyanagi, S. The stochastic gravitational wave background from close hyperbolic encounters of primordial black holes in dense clusters. Phys. Dark Universe 2022, 36, 101009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukherjee, S.; Silk, J. Can we distinguish astrophysical from primordial black holes via the stochastic gravitational wave background? Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2021, 506, 3977–3985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atal, V.; Blanco-Pillado, J.J.; Sanglas, A.; Triantafyllou, N. Constraining changes in the merger history of BH and PBH binaries with the stochastic gravitational wave background. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 105, 123522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanagh, B.J.; Gaggero, D.; Bertone, G. Merger rate of a subdominant population of primordial black holes. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 98, 023536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilipenko, S.; Tkachev, M.; Ivanov, P. Evolution of a primordial binary black hole due to interaction with cold dark matter and the formation rate of gravitational wave events. Phys. Rev. D 2022, 105, 123504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jangra, P.; Kavanagh, B.J.; Diego, J.M. Impact of dark matter spikes on the merger rates of Primordial Black Holes. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 11, 069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stasenko, V.D.; Eroshenko, Y.N. Mergers of Binary Primordial Black Holes in Evolving Dark Matter Halos. Astron. Lett. 2024, 50, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berezhiani, L.; Cintia, G.; De Luca, V.; Khoury, J. Dynamical friction in dark matter superfluids: The evolution of black hole binaries. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2024, 06, 024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadota, K.; Kim, J.H.; Ko, P.; Yang, X.Y. Gravitational wave probes on self-interacting dark matter surrounding an intermediate mass black hole. Phys. Rev. D 2024, 109, 015022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, M.S.; Sagunski, L. Dynamical friction from self-interacting dark matter. Astron. Astrophys. 2024, 690, A299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aurrekoetxea, J.C.; Marsden, J.; Clough, K.; Ferreira, P.G. Self-interacting scalar dark matter around binary black holes. Phys. Rev. D 2024, 110, 083011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso-Álvarez, G.; Cline, J.M.; Dewar, C. Self-Interacting Dark Matter Solves the Final Parsec Problem of Supermassive Black Hole Mergers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2024, 133, 021401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luo, J.; Chen, L.-S.; Duan, H.-Z.; Gong, Y.-G.; Hu, S.; Ji, J.; Liu, Q.; Mei, J.; Milyukov, V.; Sazhin, M.; et al. TianQin: A space-borne gravitational wave detector. Class. Quantum Gravity 2016, 33, 035010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reitze, D.; Adhikari, R.X.; Ballmer, S.; Barish, B.; Barsotti, L.; Billingsley, G.; Brown, D.A.; Chen, Y.; Coyne, D.; Eisenstein, R.; et al. Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO. Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 2019, 51, 035. [Google Scholar]
- Maggiore, M.; Van Den Broeck, C.; Bartolo, N.; Belgacem, E.; Bertacca, D.; Bizouard, M.A.; Branchesi, M.; Clesse, S.; Foffa, S.; García-Bellido, J.; et al. Science Case for the Einstein Telescope. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 03, 050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abac, A.; Abramo, R.; Albanesi, S.; Albertini, A.; Agapito, A.; Agathos, M.; Albertus, C.; Andersson, N.; Andrade, T.; Andreoni, I.; et al. The Science of the Einstein Telescope. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2503.12263. [Google Scholar]
- Witten, E. Quantum Field Theory and the Jones Polynomial. Commun. Math. Phys. 1989, 121, 351–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, V.F.R. A Polynomial Invariant for Knots via von Neumann Algebras. In Fields Medallists’ Lectures; World Scientific: Singapore, 1997; pp. 448–458. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, F.; Vertigan, D.L.; Welsh, D.J. On the computational complexity of the Jones and Tutte polynomials. In Proceedings of the Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; Volume 108, pp. 35–53. [Google Scholar]
- Bernstein, E.; Vazirani, U. Quantum Complexity Theory. SIAM J. Comput. 1997, 26, 1411–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raz, R.; Tal, A. Oracle Separation of BQP and PH. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 23–26 June 2019; pp. 13–23. [Google Scholar]
- Neto, F.M.; Ludermir, T.B.; Oliveira, W.R.; Silva, A.J. Solving NP-Complete Problems Using Quantum Weightless Neuron Nodes. In Proceedings of the 2015 Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS); IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 258–263. [Google Scholar]
- Ruppert, D.; Wand, M.P.; Carroll, R.J. Semiparametric Regression; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Battaglia, P.; Pascanu, R.; Lai, M.; Jimenez Rezende, D.; Kavukcuoglu, K. Interaction Networks for Learning about Objects, Relations and Physics. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29 (NIPS 2016), Barcelona, Spain, 5–10 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, H.; Tian, Y.; Dai, B.; Skiena, S.; Song, L. Syntax-Directed Variational Autoencoder for Structured Data. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1802.08786. [Google Scholar]
- Ciardiello, A.; Asai, M.; Caccia, B.; Cirrone, G.A.P.; Colonna, M.; Dotti, A.; Faccini, R.; Giagu, S.; Messina, A.; Napolitani, P.; et al. Preliminary results in using Deep Learning to emulate BLOB, a nuclear interaction model. Phys. Medica 2020, 73, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steinle, N.; Safi-Harb, S. Machine learning classification of black holes in the mass-spin diagram. Phys. Rev. D 2025, 112, 103038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Bhimji, W.; Nachman, B. Machine Learning Templates for QCD Factorization in the Search for Physics Beyond the Standard Model. J. High Energy Phys. 2019, 05, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ATLAS Collaboration Search for direct production of electroweakinos in final states with one lepton, missing transverse momentum and a Higgs boson decaying into two b-jets in pp collisions at TeV with the ATLAS detector. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1909.09226.
- Karniadakis, G.E.; Kevrekidis, I.G.; Lu, L.; Perdikaris, P.; Wang, S.; Yang, L. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2021, 3, 422–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guest, D.; Cranmer, K.; Whiteson, D. Deep Learning and its Application to LHC Physics. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2018, 68, 161–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radovic, A.; Williams, M.; Rousseau, D.; Kagan, M.; Bonacorsi, D.; Himmel, A.; Aurisano, A.; Terao, K.; Wongjirad, T. Machine learning at the energy and intensity frontiers of particle physics. Nature 2018, 560, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhou, K.; Wang, L.; Pang, L.G.; Shi, S. Exploring QCD matter in extreme conditions with Machine Learning. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 2024, 135, 104084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanahan, P.; Terao, K.; Whiteson, D.; Aarts, G.; Adelmann, A.; Akchurin, N.; Alexandru, A.; Amram, O.; Andreassen, A.; Apresyan, A.; et al. Snowmass 2021 Computational Frontier CompF03 Topical Group Report: Machine Learning. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2209.07559. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, L.; Scialpi, M.; di Clemente, F.; Bejger, M. PINNGraPE: Physics Informed Neural Network for Gravitational wave Parameter Estimation. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2510.02858. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, A.K.; Tolley, E. SPINN: Advancing Cosmological Simulations of Fuzzy Dark Matter with Physics Informed Neural Networks. Astrophys. J. 2025, 988, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bento, M.; Câmara, H.; Seabra, J. Unraveling particle dark matter with Physics-Informed Neural Networks. Phys. Lett. B 2025, 868, 139690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphreys, P. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Roscher, R.; Bohn, B.; Duarte, M.F.; Garcke, J. Explainable Machine Learning for Scientific Insights and Discoveries. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 42200–42216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L. Discovering Phase Transitions with Unsupervised Learning. Phys. Rev. B 2016, 94, 195105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, G.W.; Calzà, M.; Pedrotti, D. Machine learning-based analytical expressions for Gray-Body Factors and application to Primordial Black Holes. Phys. Dark Universe 2025, 50, 102078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Futia, G.; Vetrò, A. On the Integration of Knowledge Graphs into Deep Learning Models for a More Comprehensible AI—Three Challenges for Future Research. Information 2020, 11, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Napolitani, P.; Colonna, M.; Di Prima, M. Bifurcations in Dissipative Fermionic Dynamics. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2014, 515, 012014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, J.; Han, S.; Harris, P.; Jindariani, S.; Kreinar, E.; Kreis, B.; Ngadiuba, J.; Pierini, M.; Rivera, R.; Tran, N.; et al. Fast inference of deep neural networks in FPGAs for particle physics. J. Instrum. 2018, 13, P07027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francescato, S.; Giagu, S.; Riti, F.; Russo, G.; Sabetta, L.; Tortonesi, F. Model compression and simplification pipelines for fast deep neural network inference in FPGAs in HEP. Eur. Phys. J. C 2021, 81, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belis, V.; Odagiu, P.; Aarrestad, T.K. Machine learning for anomaly detection in particle physics. Rev. Phys. 2024, 12, 100091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riehn, F.; Engel, R.; Fedynitch, A.; Gaisser, T.K.; Stanev, T. The hadronic interaction model Sibyll 2.3c and extensive air showers. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1912.03300. [Google Scholar]
- Ostapchenko, S. Monte Carlo treatment of hadronic interactions in enhanced Pomeron scheme: I. QGSJET-II model. Phys. Rev. D 2011, 83, 014018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierog, T.; Karpenko, I.; Katzy, J.M.; Yatsenko, E.; Werner, K. EPOS LHC: Test of collective hadronization with data measured at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Phys. Rev. C 2015, 92, 034906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cranmer, M.; Sanchez-Gonzalez, A.; Battaglia, P.; Xu, R.; Cranmer, K.; Spergel, D.; Ho, S. Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2006.11287. [Google Scholar]
- Coleman, S.R. The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory. Phys. Rev. D 1977, 15, 2929–2936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witten, E. Cosmic Separation of Phases. Phys. Rev. D 1984, 30, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosowsky, A.; Turner, M.S.; Watkins, R. Gravitational Radiation from Colliding Vacuum Bubbles. Phys. Rev. D 1992, 45, 4514–4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wainwright, C.L. CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2012, 183, 2006–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Athron, P.; Balázs, C.; Fowlie, A.; Zhang, Y. PhaseTracer: Tracing Cosmological Phases and Calculating Transition Properties. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marciano, A.; Chen, D.; Fabrocini, F.; Fields, C.; Greco, E.; Gresnigt, N.; Jinklub, K.; Lulli, M.; Terzidis, K.; Zappala, E. Deep Neural Networks as the Semi-Classical Limit of Quantum Neural Networks. Neural Netw. 2022, 153, 164. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Fields, C.; Glazebrook, J.F.; Marciano, A. Sequential Measurements, Topological Quantum Field Theories, and Topological Quantum Neural Networks. Fortschritte Der Phys. 2022, 70, 2200104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marciano, A.; Chen, D.; Fabrocini, F.; Fields, C.; Lulli, M.; Zappala, E. Deep Neural Networks as the Semi-Classical Limit of Topological Quantum Neural Networks: The Problem of Generalisation. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2210.13741. [Google Scholar]
- Cattaneo, A.S.; Cotta-Ramusino, P.; Fucito, F.; Martellini, M.; Rinaldi, M.; Tanzini, A.; Zeni, M. Four-Dimensional Yang-Mills Theory as a Deformation of Topological BF Theory. Commun. Math. Phys. 1998, 197, 571–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creutz, M. Quarks, Gluons and Lattices; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Beer, K.; Bondarenko, D.; Farrelly, T.; Osborne, T.J.; Salzmann, R.; Scheiermann, D.; Wolf, R. Tensor Network-Based Machine Learning. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Laureijs, R.; Amiaux, J.; Arduini, S.; Auguères, J.-L.; Brinchmann, J.; Cole, R.; Cropper, M.; Dabin, C.; Duvet, L.; Ealet, A.; et al. Euclid definition study report. arXiv 2011, arXiv:1110.3193. [Google Scholar]
- Ivezić, Ž.; Kahn, S.M.; Tyson, J.A.; Abel, B.; Acosta, E.; Allsman, R.; Alonso, D.; AlSayyad, Y.; Anderson, S.F.; Andrew, J.; et al. LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products. Astrophys. J. 2019, 873, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul-Karim, M.; Aguilar, J.; Ahlen, S.; Alam, S.; Allen, L.; Allende Prieto, C.; Alves, O.; Anand, A.; Andrade, U.; Armengaud, E.; et al. (DESI Collaboration) DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2503.14738. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, M.; Rau, M.M.; Ntampaka, M.; Farahi, A.; Trac, H.; Poczos, B. A Robust and Efficient Deep Learning Method for Dynamical Mass Measurements of Galaxy Clusters. Astrophys. J. 2019, 887, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peel, A.; Lalande, F.; Starck, J.L.; Pettorino, V.; Merten, J.; Giocoli, C.; Meneghetti, M.; Baldi, M. Distinguishing standard and modified gravity cosmologies with machine learning. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 023508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caldeira, J.; Wu, W.L.K.; Nord, B.; Avestruz, C.; Trivedi, S.; Story, K.T. DeepCMB: Lensing Reconstruction of the Cosmic Microwave Background with Deep Neural Networks. Astron. Comput. 2019, 28, 100307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, S.; Li, Y.; Feng, Y.; Ho, S.; Ravanbakhsh, S.; Chen, W.; Póczos, B. Learning to Predict the Cosmological Structure Formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 13825–13832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ravanbakhsh, S.; Lanusse, F.; Mandelbaum, R.; Schneider, J.; Poczos, B. Enabling Dark Energy Science with Deep Generative Models of Galaxy Images. arXiv 2016, arXiv:1609.05796. [Google Scholar]
- Escamilla-Rivera, C.; Quintero, M.A.C.; Capozziello, S. A deep learning approach to cosmological dark energy models. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020, 03, 008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Narayan, G.; Zaidi, T.; Soraisam, M.D.; Wang, Z.; Lochner, M.; Matheson, T.; Saha, A.; Yang, S.; Zhao, Z.; Kececioglu, J.; et al. Machine Learning-based Brokers for Real-time Classification of the LSST Alert Stream. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2018, 236, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanusse, F.; Ma, Q.; Li, N.; Collett, T.E.; Li, C.; Ravanbakhsh, S.; Mandelbaum, R.; Poczos, B. CMU DeepLens: Deep learning for automatic image-based galaxy–galaxy strong lens finding. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2018, 473, 3895–3906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Valentino, E.; Said, J.L.; Riess, A.; Pollo, A.; Poulin, V.; Gómez-Valent, A.; Weltman, A.; Palmese, A.; Huang, C.D.; van de Bruck, C.; et al. The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2504.01669. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.C.; Xie, Y.B.; Zhang, T.J.; Huang, H.C.; Zhang, T.; Liu, K. Likelihood-free Cosmological Constraints with Artificial Neural Networks: An Application on Hubble Parameters and SNe Ia. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2021, 254, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.J.; Cheng, C.; Ma, Y.Z.; Xia, J.Q.; Abebe, A.; Beesham, A. CoLFI: Cosmological Likelihood-free Inference with Neural Density Estimators. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2023, 268, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gómez-Vargas, I.; Esquivel, R.M.; García-Salcedo, R.; Vázquez, J.A. Neural network reconstructions for the Hubble parameter, growth rate and distance modulus. Eur. Phys. J. C 2023, 83, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manrique-Yus, A.; Sellentin, E. Euclid-era cosmology for everyone: Neural net assisted MCMC sampling for the joint 3×2 likelihood. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2020, 491, 2655–2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spurio Mancini, A.; Piras, D.; Alsing, J.; Joachimi, B.; Hobson, M.P. CosmoPower: Emulating cosmological power spectra for accelerated Bayesian inference from next-generation surveys. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2022, 511, 1771–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albers, J.; Fidler, C.; Lesgourgues, J.; Schöneberg, N.; Torrado, J. CosmicNet. Part I. Physics-driven implementation of neural networks within Einstein-Boltzmann Solvers. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2019, 09, 028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auld, T.; Bridges, M.; Hobson, M.P.; Gull, S.F. Fast cosmological parameter estimation using neural networks. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2007, 376, L11–L15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.J.; Li, S.Y.; Xia, J.Q. ECoPANN: A Framework for Estimating Cosmological Parameters using Artificial Neural Networks. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 2020, 249, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Günther, S.; Lesgourgues, J.; Samaras, G.; Schöneberg, N.; Stadtmann, F.; Fidler, C.; Torrado, J. CosmicNet II: Emulating extended cosmologies with efficient and accurate neural networks. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 11, 035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabiu, C.G.; Kadota, K.; Asorey, J.; Park, I. Probing ultra-light axion dark matter from 21 cm tomography using Convolutional Neural Networks. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 2022, 020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asorey, J.; Crocce, M.; Gaztanaga, E.; Lewis, A. Recovering 3D clustering information with angular correlations. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2012, 427, 1891–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrés-Carcasona, M.; Martinez, M.; Mir, L.M. Fast Bayesian gravitational wave parameter estimation using convolutional neural networks. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 527, 2887–2894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papamakarios, G.; Nalisnick, E.; Rezende, D.J.; Mohamed, S.; Lakshminarayanan, B. Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and inference. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2021, 22, 1–64. [Google Scholar]
- Bevins, H.T.J.; Handley, W.J.; Lemos, P.; Sims, P.H.; de Lera Acedo, E.; Fialkov, A.; Alsing, J. Marginal post-processing of Bayesian inference products with normalizing flows and kernel density estimators. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2023, 526, 4613–4626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, R.; Hassan, S. HIGlow: Conditional Normalizing Flows for High-Fidelity HI Map Modeling. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2211.12724. [Google Scholar]
- Mootoovaloo, A.; García-García, C.; Alonso, D.; Ruiz-Zapatero, J. emuflow: Normalizing flows for joint cosmological analysis. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2024, 536, 190–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohl-Dickstein, J.; Weiss, E.; Maheswaranathan, N.; Ganguli, S. Deep Unsupervised Learning Using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Lille, France, 6–11 July 2015; pp. 2256–2265. [Google Scholar]
- Song, J.; Meng, C.; Ermon, S. Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.02502. [Google Scholar]
- Mudur, N.; Cuesta-Lazaro, C.; Finkbeiner, D.P. Cosmological Field Emulation and Parameter Inference with Diffusion Models. In Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–16 December 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Mudur, N.; Cuesta-Lazaro, C.; Finkbeiner, D.P. Diffusion-HMC: Parameter Inference with Diffusion-model-driven Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. Astrophys. J. 2025, 978, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koloniari, A.E.; Koursoumpa, E.C.; Nousi, P.; Lampropoulos, P.; Passalis, N.; Tefas, A.; Stergioulas, N. New Gravitational Wave Discoveries Enabled by Machine Learning. Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 2024, 6, 015054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thakur, P.; Taridalu, A.; Rather, I.A.; Klangburam, T.; Pongkitivanichkul, C. Constraining axionlike particle mediated dark matter with observational constraints: A statistical and machine learning approach. Phys. Rev. D 2026, 113, 023001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Einsle, H.; Bizouard, M.A.; Regimbau, T.; Sakellariadou, M. Gravitational-wave background detection using machine learning. Phys. Rev. D 2025, 112, 063056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwanaga, H.; Matsuyama, M.; Itoh, Y. Enhancing the reliability of machine learning for gravitational wave parameter estimation with attention-based models. Phys. Rev. D 2025, 112, 083020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, J.Q.; Huang, H.L.; He, J.; Wang, Y.T.; Piao, Y.S. A fast deep-learning approach to probing primordial black hole populations in gravitational wave events. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2505.15530. [Google Scholar]
- Delaunoy, A.; de la Brassinne Bonardeaux, M.; Mishra-Sharma, S.; Louppe, G. Low-Budget Simulation-Based Inference with Bayesian Neural Networks. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.15136. [Google Scholar]
- Cranmer, K.; Brehmer, J.; Louppe, G. The Frontier of Simulation-Based Inference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 30055–30062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alsing, J.; Charnock, T.; Feeney, S.; Wandelt, B. Fast likelihood-free cosmology with neural density estimators and active learning. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2019, 488, 4440–4458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeffrey, N.; Whiteway, L.; Gatti, M.; Williamson, J.; Alsing, J.; Porredon, A.; Prat, J.; Doux, C.; Jain, B.; Chang, C.; et al. Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Likelihood-free, simulation-based wCDM inference with neural compression of weak-lensing map statistics. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2025, 536, 1303–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Leja, J.; Villar, V.A.; Speagle, J.S. SBI++: Flexible, ultra-fast likelihood-free inference customized for astronomical applications. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2023, 952, L10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mediato-Diaz, N.; Handley, W. Cosmological Parameter Estimation with Sequential Linear Simulation-Based Inference. arXiv 2025, arXiv:2501.03921. [Google Scholar]
- Zhong, F.; Napolitano, N.R.; Comparat, J.; Dolag, K.; Heneka, C.; Huang, Z.; Li, X.; Lin, W.; Longo, G.; Radovich, M.; et al. Machine-learning cosmological parameters by eROSITA data. arXiv 2026, arXiv:2602.20483. [Google Scholar]
- Rojas, L.; Espinoza, S.; Gonzalez, E.; Maldonado, C.; Luo, F. A Systematic Literature Review of Machine Learning Techniques for Observational Constraints in Cosmology. Galaxies 2025, 13, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kojima, H.; Ikegami, T. Organization of a Latent Space Structure in VAE/GAN Trained by Navigation Data. Neural Netw. 2022, 152, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higgins, I.; Matthey, L.; Pal, A.; Burgess, C.P.; Glorot, X.; Botvinick, M.M.; Mohamed, S.; Lerchner, A. beta-VAE: Learning Basic Visual Concepts with a Constrained Variational Framework. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Toulon, France, 24–26 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, R.T.Q.; Li, X.; Grosse, R.; Duvenaud, D. Isolating Sources of Disentanglement in VAEs. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 3–8 December 2018; Volume 31, pp. 2615–2625. [Google Scholar]
- ATLAS Collaboration. Search for light long-lived neutral particles produced in pp collisions at TeV and decaying into collimated leptons or light hadrons with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 450. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, J.; Cui, G.; Hu, S.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, C.; Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; Sun, M. Graph Neural Networks: A Review of Methods and Applications. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1812.08434. [Google Scholar]



Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Addazi, A.; Belotsky, K.; Beylin, V.; Bikbaev, T.; Chen, D.; Fabrocini, F.; Giagu, S.; Jinklub, K.; Kharakhashyan, A.; Khlopov, M.; et al. Machine Learning for Multi-Messenger Probes of New Physics and Cosmology: Review and Perspective. Symmetry 2026, 18, 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym18071116
Addazi A, Belotsky K, Beylin V, Bikbaev T, Chen D, Fabrocini F, Giagu S, Jinklub K, Kharakhashyan A, Khlopov M, et al. Machine Learning for Multi-Messenger Probes of New Physics and Cosmology: Review and Perspective. Symmetry. 2026; 18(7):1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym18071116
Chicago/Turabian StyleAddazi, Andrea, Konstantin Belotsky, Vitaly Beylin, Timur Bikbaev, Deen Chen, Filippo Fabrocini, Stefano Giagu, Krid Jinklub, Artem Kharakhashyan, Maxim Khlopov, and et al. 2026. "Machine Learning for Multi-Messenger Probes of New Physics and Cosmology: Review and Perspective" Symmetry 18, no. 7: 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym18071116
APA StyleAddazi, A., Belotsky, K., Beylin, V., Bikbaev, T., Chen, D., Fabrocini, F., Giagu, S., Jinklub, K., Kharakhashyan, A., Khlopov, M., Korchagin, V., Krasnov, M., Mahajan, A., Marcianò, A., Mayorov, A., Morais, A., Pasechnik, R., Said, J. L., Sopin, D., ... Trivedi, O. (2026). Machine Learning for Multi-Messenger Probes of New Physics and Cosmology: Review and Perspective. Symmetry, 18(7), 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym18071116

