CERN-TH-2020-157 DESY 20-154 From NANOGrav to LIGO with metastable cosmic strings

Wilfried Buchmuller,1, ∗ Valerie Domcke,2, 3, † and Kai Schmitz2, ‡ 1Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron DESY, 22607 Hamburg, Germany 2Theoretical Physics Department, CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland 3Institute of Physics, Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, EPFL, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland (Dated: August 2, 2021) We interpret the recent NANOGrav results in terms of a stochastic gravitational wave background from metastable cosmic strings. The observed amplitude of a stochastic signal can be translated into a range for the cosmic string tension and the mass of magnetic monopoles arising in theories of grand unification. In a sizable part of the parameter space, this interpretation predicts a large stochastic gravitational wave signal in the frequency band of ground-based interferometers, which can be probed in the very near future. We confront these results with predictions from successful inflation, leptogenesis and dark matter from the spontaneous breaking of a gauged B−L symmetry.

Introduction nal is too small to be observed by Virgo [17], LIGO [18] The direct observation of gravitational waves (GWs) and KAGRA [19] but will be probed by LISA [20] and generated by merging black holes [1–3] has led to an in- other planned GW observatories. creasing interest in further explorations of the GW spec- In this Letter we study a further possibility, metastable trum. Astrophysical sources can lead to a stochastic cosmic strings. Recently, it has been shown that GWs gravitational background (SGWB) over a wide range of emitted from a metastable cosmic string network can frequencies, and the ultimate hope is the detection of a probe the seesaw mechanism of neutrino physics and SGWB of cosmological origin. So far, transient merger high-scale leptogenesis [21] as well as the energy scale events have been observed at frequencies around 100 Hz. of grand unification [22, 23]. Such metastable cosmic Moreover, stringent upper bounds on a SGWB have strings arise when connecting hybrid inflation, high-scale been obtained by pulsar timing array (PTA) experiments leptogenesis and dark matter with gravitational waves which are sensitive to frequencies around fyr 1 yr. through U 1 B−L breaking in a cosmological phase tran- Over the past years the European Timing Array (EPTA) sition [24, 25]. Here B L denotes the difference of baryon [4], the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array (PPTA)= [5]~ and number and( ) lepton number, and the product of U 1 B−L the North American Nanohertz Observatory for Grav- and the Standard Model− gauge group is embedded into itational Waves (NANOGrav) [6] have reached upper the GUT group SO(10). If the U 1 B−L cosmic( strings) 2 −9 bounds on the amplitude h Ωgw 1 yr of order 10 . are not protected by an additional unbroken discrete Searching for an isotropic SGWB, the NANOGrav Col- symmetry, this embedding leads to( the) existence of mag- laboration has recently reported( ~ strong) evidence of a netic monopoles, allowing the cosmic strings to decay stochastic process in their lowest frequency bins, which via the Schwinger production of monopole-antimonopole can be modeled as a power-law with common amplitude pairs with a rate per string unit length of [26–28]1 and slope across all pulsars [7]. The amplitude of the µ m2 signal is of the order of the previously obtained upper Γ exp πκ , κ , (1) bounds. The current data is not conclusive with re- d 2π µ spect to a quadrupolar spatial correlation and therefore = (− ) = 2 the discovery of a SGWB cannot be claimed. Neverthe- where m vGUT is the monopole mass and µ vB−L is less, the result of the analysis is very intriguing, and the the string tension. Here vGUT and vB−L are the scales of NANOGrav Collaboration finds that the signal is consis- SO(10) and∼ U 1 B−L symmetry breaking, respectively.∼ tent, within 2σ of a Bayesian analysis, with a SGWB from At frequencies around 100 Hz the model of [24] predicts arXiv:2009.10649v3 [astro-ph.CO] 30 Jul 2021 supermassive black hole binaries, the expected dominant a GW amplitude( ) close to the present upper bound found astrophysical source at frequencies around 1 yr [8,9]. by the LIGO/Virgo collaboration, and upper bounds on There are also cosmological interpretations of the a SGWB by PTA experiments lead to an upper bound NANOGrav results. Examples are the formation~ of pri- on the ratio κ and therefore on the monopole mass [22]. mordial black holes from high-amplitude curvature per- With the new NANOGrav data [7], κ and hence the scale turbations during inflation [10, 11] or dark sector phase of grand unification vGUT can now be determined. transitions [12]. Another prominent possibility is cosmic strings formed in a U 1 symmetry-breaking phase tran- sition in the early universe [13, 14]. Indeed, it has been 1 demonstrated that GWs( ) from a network of stable strings Due to their large mass, these monopoles can only be created 2 −9 prior to the final 60 e-folds of cosmic inflation or on the cosmic with an amplitude h Ωgw 1 yr 10 can account for strings. In both cases, there are no remnant magnetic monopoles the NANOGrav stochastic background [15, 16]. This sig- in our present Universe. ( ~ ) ∼ 2

GWs from metastable cosmic strings decaying in the matter dominated era. The integration We briefly review the calculation of the stochastic grav- range in Eq. (3) accounts for the lifetime of the cosmic itational wave background arising from metastable cos- string network, from the formation at zmax until their mic strings [22]. The present-day GW spectrum can be decay at zmin when the decay rate of a string loop with expressed as [20] average length equals the Hubble rate [26],4

∂ρ f 2 ∞ 1~2 gw 8πf Gµ 70 1~4 Ωgw f 2 Cn f Pn , (2) zmin ΓΓd Gµ . (5) ρc∂ ln f 3H0 n=1 H ( ) ( ) 0 ( ) = = Q ( ) = ‹  ( ) where ρgw denotes the GW energy density, ρc is the crit- For cosmic string loops formed and emitting GWs in the ical energy density of the universe, Gµ denotes the di- radiation dominated era, this results in an approximately mensionless string tension with the gravitational con- scale invariant GW spectrum. The finite lifetime of the −39 −2 stant G 6.7 10 GeV , H0 100 h km s Mpc is cosmic strings leads to a fall-off f 3~2 of this spectrum −4~3 today’s Hubble parameter, Pn 50 ζ 4 3 n is the at small frequencies f f∗ with [22] power spectrum= ⋅ of GWs emitted by= the nth ~harmonic~ ∝ 2 of a cosmic string loop , and C ≃ f ~indicates[ ~ ] the num- 1~2 n < e−πκ~4 10−7 ber of loops emitting GWs that are observed at a given f 4.4 10−8 Hz , (6) ∗ −16π frequency f, ( ) e Gµ ≃ × Œ ‘ 2n zmax ` z , t z see Fig.2 for some examples of GW spectra for different C f dz , (3) n 2 6 values of the two dimensionless model parameters Gµ f zmin H z 1 z N ( ( ) ( )) and κ. ( ) = S which is a function of the number density( )( + of cosmic) string For the numerical evaluation of Eq. (2), we refine the loops `, t , with ` 2n 1 z f , selecting the loops analysis of Ref. [22] by resumming the first 20,000 modes that contribute to the spectrum at frequency f today. and taking into account the changes in the number of ModelingN ( the) evolution= and~(( GW+ ) emission) of a cosmic effective degrees of freedom in the thermal bath (see also string network is a challenging task, resulting in several [33]). Our final results prove rather insensitive to both competing models for the loop number density in the these refinements. Approximating r, we can ex- literature (see [20] for an overview). {For concreteness, tract the n-dependence of CnPn analytically if ` is much we will base our analysis on the Blanco-Pillado–Olum– smaller or larger than ΓGµt. As discussedN ≃ N in Ref. [22], Shlaer (BOS) model [29] and fix the cosmic string loop this distinction corresponds to the f 3~2 slope and the −17~3 size to α ` H 0.1 at formation. This roughly corre- plateau regime. For the former, we find CnPn n , (1) sponds to the peak in the distribution of α values found such that the resummation yields Ωgw ζ 17 3 Ωgw in [29]. The= ~ peak= itself has a width of less than an or- (1) (1) ∝ 1.02 Ωgw , with Ωgw denoting the result for n 1. For the der of magnitude, which translates into an uncertainty plateau value, we instead obtain a factor= (ζ 4~3) 3.6,≃ in the GW signal of less than half an order of magni- which implies an 1 correction. = tude [20]. We also note that the assumption of fixed α For the evolution of the degrees of freedom( we~ ) use≃ the is relaxed in [16], which scans over a larger range of α O( ) 3 results of [34] for the SM degrees of freedom and moreover values. For loops generated and decaying during the include supersymmetric degrees of freedom at a threshold radiation-dominated era, this yields in particular [20, 29] value of 2 TeV. This does not impact the predictions in 0.18 the NANOGrav frequency range. `, t , (4) r 3~2 5~2 t ` ΓGµt Explaining the NANOGrav results N ( ) = We now proceed to comparing the GW signal predicted where Γ 50 parametrizes the( + cosmic) string decay rate into GWs, `˙ ΓGµ. This yields the dominant contri- by metastable cosmic strings to the recent NANOGrav bution to≃ the GW spectrum in most of the parameter results [7], which constrain the amplitude and slope of a range of interest,= − but in our numerical computation of the spectrum we also include the loops created and/or

4 In the U(1)B−L model [22, 24], the formation time of the cosmic string network coincides with the reheating epoch after inflation, i.e. zmax ≃ Trh~(2.7 K), with Trh denoting the reheating tem- 2 Here we focus on cusps as the main source of GW emission, kinks perature. In the viable parameter space of [22], the latter takes 8 10 and kink-kink collisions yield a different O(1) factor in both the values of 10 < Trh < 10 GeV, determined by the decay of B−L argument of the ζ function and the power of n in Pn. Higgs fields and right-handed neutrinos. For such high reheating 3 Because the expression in Eq. (4) is only valid for α = 0.1, the temperatures, the details of the reheating process and the string analysis in [16] employs the analytical velocity-dependent one- formation only impact the GW spectrum at very high frequencies scale (VOS) model [30–32] instead of the BOS model. beyond the range discussed here [20]. 3

10-7 SKA LISA LIGO ET - κ= 8.3 Gμ= 10 6 8.2 8.1 10-7 8.0 - 10 7 7.9 -8 ★★ 10 - ◆◆ 10 8 -9 2 10 ◆◆ 2 h ★★7.8 h - yr gw 9 gw - 10 Ω 10 9 Ω -10 10 10-11

10-10 10-13 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 10-8 10-4 100 104

nt f [Hz]

FIG. 1: Gravitational wave signals from metastable cosmic FIG. 2: Gravitational wave spectra from metastable cosmic strings compared to the NANOGrav observations for different strings explaining the NANOGrav excess (at 2σ CL). The values of the string tension Gµ and the hierarchy between the colored blue (green) region accounts for successful inflation, GUT and U(1) breaking scale κ. The solid coloured lines baryogenesis and dark matter [22, 24] for the maximal (mini- −10 −6 √ indicate fixed values√ of Gµ = 10 , .., 10 , the dotted lines mal) allowed value of Gµ with κ = 7.9..8.0 (8.05..8.15), cor- indicate contours of κ = 7.8, 7.9, .., 9. The orange region with responding to the ⋆ (◆) markers in Fig.1. For reference, the the solid (dashed) contours show the 68% and 95% regions dashed red line shows the spectrum for stable cosmic strings reported by NANOGrav when performing a fit to the first 5 −10 for the best-fit value Gµ = 10 [15, 16], this√ curve is de- frequency bins (performing a fit with a broken power law). generate with the corresponding curve with κ = 9. The (lighter) gray-shaded areas indicate the sensitivities of the (planned) experiments SKA [35], LISA [36], LIGO/Virgo [37] and ET [38]. The orange band indicates the frequency range stochastic process. Expressing the dimensionless charac- of NANOGrav. α teristic strain as hc A f fyr with the reference fre- quency fyr 32 nHz, the amplitude of the SGWB is obtained as = ( ~ ) = 2α 2 n points in the upper left corner). For each value of Gµ, 2π2f 2 A2 f + f t Ω f yr Ωyr . (7) we consider the range κ 7.8..9.0; smaller values lead gw 3H2 f gw f 0 yr yr to an unobservably small√ spectrum at nHz frequencies, This allows( ) = us to directlyŒ translate‘ ≡ the oneŒ and‘ two sigma while all values κ 9 quickly= converge towards the re- yr sult for stable cosmic strings, see [15, 16]. Contours of confidence intervals given in [7] into the Ωgw nt plane, as √ depicted by the orange shaded region in Fig.1. To com- constant Gµ (κ) are≳ indicated by solid (dotted) lines in pute the theory prediction for a given parameter− point, Fig.1. we evaluate Ωgw f at the five frequencies corresponding The cyan shaded band in Fig.1 indicates the predic- to the five frequency bins used in the analysis of [7], and tion from B L breaking in the early Universe [22, 24]. yr then extract the( parameters) Ωgw and nt by performing a Remarkably the predicted GW signal at nHz frequencies least squares power-law fit. This procedure ensures that is compatible− with the NANOGrav results at 2 sigma. both theory and experimental data are evaluated in the It is intriguing that the values of the cosmic string same frequency range, f 2.4..12 nHz, which lies some- tension Gµ found in the context of metastable cosmic what below the reference frequency fyr 32 nHz. This strings can be significantly larger than the values found rather simple procedure is= sufficient for our purpose, since for stable cosmic strings [15, 16], implying the possibility the predicted spectral shape can be reasonably= well ap- of observing this signal with the existing ground-based proximated by a power law in this frequency range, as detectors Virgo, LIGO and KAGRA. The reason for this can be seen from Fig.2. is twofold. Firstly, the finite lifetime of the cosmic strings In Fig.1, we compare these predictions from leads to a suppression of the low-frequency spectrum, im- metastable cosmic strings (mesh of solid and dotted plying a blue tilt of the GW spectrum between the range curves) with the constraints on the amplitude and tilt of PTAs and the frequency band of ground-based inter- from [7] (orange shaded region). We vary Gµ from the ferometers. In particular, the production of GWs after lowest value capable of explaining the NANOGrav results matter-radiation equality is suppressed, which for sta- at 2 sigma, Gµ 10−10, to the largest value compatible ble cosmic strings leads to a mild enhancement at low with the constraints from LIGO/Virgo [37], Gµ 10−6. frequencies, see e.g. the dashed red curve in Fig.2. Sec- The CMB constraint≃ Gµ 1.3 10−7 [39] only applies ondly, the NANOGrav data exhibit a sizable correlation to cosmic strings with a life-time exceeding CMB≃ de- between the amplitude and tilt of the spectrum, allowing coupling, corresponding to< κ ×8.6 (indicated by gray for larger amplitudes for positive values of nt. √ ≳ 4

Discussion Acknowledgements. We thank Daniel Figueroa for In the model of cosmological U 1 B−L breaking [22, helpful discussions on the modeling of cosmic strings and 24], successful inflation, leptogenesis and dark matter re- Adeela Afzal for comments on Fig.1. This project has re- strict the allowed values of Gµ to a( narrow) band around ceived funding from the European’s Union Horizon 2020 Gµ 3 10−7, depicted by the cyan region in Fig.1. Research and Innovation Programme under grant agree- Interpreting the NANOGrav results as originating from ment number 796961, ’AxiBAU’ (K. S.). a metastable∼ × cosmic string network determines the ratio between the GUT and the B L breaking scales to lie around κ 8, excluding stable cosmic strings. More precisely, the predictions of [22−, 24] are consistent with √ ∗ ≃ Electronic address: [email protected] the recent NANOGrav results in the range from Gµ † −7 −7 Electronic address: [email protected] 1.0 10 , with κ 8.05..8.15, to Gµ 5.6 10 , with ‡ Electronic address: [email protected] κ 7.9..8.0. The√ corresponding values of B L breaking= [1] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, B. Abbott × = = × 15 scales√ and monopoles masses are vB−L 3.0 10 GeV, et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 16 15 with=m 3.2 10 GeV and vB−L 5.8 10 −GeV, with Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), m 7.2..7.3 1016 GeV, respectively.= The× precise con- no. 6 061102, [arXiv:1602.03837]. nection≃ between× GUT symmetry breaking,= × inflation and [2] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott U =1 ( is a) challenging× theoretical question.5 et al., GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves B−L from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence, A second important outcome of our analysis are the Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 24 241103, expectations( ) for ground-based GW interferometers. In [arXiv:1606.04855]. Fig.2 the GW spectrum is shown for the upper and the [3] LIGO Scientific, VIRGO Collaboration, B. P. lower boundary of the range in Gµ that is predicted by Abbott et al., GW170104: Observation of a the considered U 1 B−L model [24]. The prediction of 50-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at this model will be probed by Advanced LIGO [37].6 The Redshift 0.2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 22 observation of a SGWB( ) with PTA experiments as well as 221101, [arXiv:1706.01812]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.121,no.12,129901(2018)]. with LIGO would give stunning support for grand uni- [4] R. M. Shannon et al., Gravitational waves from binary fied theories, with important implications for inflation, supermassive black holes missing in pulsar observations, baryogenesis and dark matter [22]. Science 349 (2015), no. 6255 1522–1525, An improved determination of the tilt of the spectrum [arXiv:1509.07320]. at PTA frequencies together with upcoming results on [5] M. Kerr et al., The Parkes Pulsar Timing Array SGWBs at LIGO frequencies will soon rule out or fur- Project: Second data release, Publ. Astron. Soc. ther support the model presented here. This encourages Austral. 37 (2020) e020, [arXiv:2003.09780]. [6] NANOGRAV Collaboration, Z. Arzoumanian et al., further refinements of the analysis, e.g. going beyond the The NANOGrav 11-year Data Set: Pulsar-timing instantaneous decay approximation for the cosmic string Constraints On The Stochastic Gravitational-wave network and taking into account the dynamics of cosmic Background, Astrophys. J. 859 (2018), no. 1 47, string decay induced by monopole formation, which may [arXiv:1801.02617]. lead to an additional GW contribution [26, 40]. One [7] NANOGrav Collaboration, Z. Arzoumanian et al., may also consider relaxing some of the model-building The NANOGrav 12.5-year Data Set: Search For An assumptions within the model of cosmological U 1 Isotropic Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background, B−L arXiv:2009.04496. breaking [24]. However, the core of the model — inflation [8] M. Rajagopal and R. W. Romani, Ultralow frequency ending in a GUT-scale phase transition in combination( ) gravitational radiation from massive black hole binaries, with leptogenesis and dark matter in a supersymmetric Astrophys. J. 446 (1995) 543–549, [astro-ph/9412038]. extension of the SM — is intrinsically tied to the GW [9] E. Phinney, A Practical theorem on gravitational wave signals discussed here. backgrounds, astro-ph/0108028. [10] V. Vaskonen and H. Veerm¨ae, Did NANOGrav see a signal from primordial black hole formation?, arXiv:2009.07832. [11] V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, NANOGrav Hints to Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter, arXiv:2009.08268. 5 Determining the O(1) factors between the√ ratio of monopole [12] Y. Nakai, M. Suzuki, F. Takahashi, and M. Yamada, mass and string tension (parametrized by κ) and the ratio of Gravitational Waves and Dark Radiation from Dark the underlying scales vGUT~vB−L requires a careful and consis- Phase Transition: Connecting NANOGrav Pulsar tent treatment of both types of topological defects under consid- Timing Data and Hubble Tension, . eration of the gauge coupling and the symmetry breaking poten- arXiv:2009.09754 tials. [13] T. Kibble, Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings, J. 6 On the contrary, interpreting the NANOGrav signal as originat- Phys. A 9 (1976) 1387–1398. ing from stable cosmic strings forces Gµ to values too low to be [14] R. Jeannerot, J. Rocher, and M. Sakellariadou, How observed by current ground-based GW interferometers [15]. generic is cosmic string formation in SUSY GUTs, 5

Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 103514, [hep-ph/0308134]. [arXiv:0903.4686]. [15] J. Ellis and M. Lewicki, Cosmic String Interpretation of [27] A. Monin and M. B. Voloshin, The Spontaneous NANOGrav Pulsar Timing Data, arXiv:2009.06555. breaking of a metastable string, Phys. Rev. D78 (2008) [16] S. Blasi, V. Brdar, and K. Schmitz, Has NANOGrav 065048, [arXiv:0808.1693]. found first evidence for cosmic strings?, [28] A. Monin and M. B. Voloshin, Destruction of a arXiv:2009.06607. metastable string by particle collisions, Phys. Atom. [17] F. Acernese et al., Advanced virgo: a second-generation Nucl. 73 (2010) 703–710, [arXiv:0902.0407]. interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical [29] J. J. Blanco-Pillado, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, The and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015), no. 2 024001. number of cosmic string loops, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), [18] LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo no. 2 023512, [arXiv:1309.6637]. Collaboration Collaboration, B. P. Abbott, [30] C. Martins and E. Shellard, String evolution with R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, friction, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 575–579, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, [hep-ph/9507335]. P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al., Gw150914: The [31] C. Martins and E. Shellard, Quantitative string advanced LIGO detectors in the era of first discoveries, evolution, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2535–2556, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (Mar, 2016) 131103. [hep-ph/9602271]. [19] KAGRA Collaboration, T. Akutsu et al., KAGRA: 2.5 [32] C. Martins and E. Shellard, Extending the velocity Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave dependent one scale string evolution model, Phys. Rev. Detector, Nature Astron. 3 (2019), no. 1 35–40, D 65 (2002) 043514, [hep-ph/0003298]. [arXiv:1811.08079]. [33] Y. Gouttenoire, G. Servant, and P. Simakachorn, [20] P. Auclair et al., Probing the gravitational wave Beyond the Standard Models with Cosmic Strings, background from cosmic strings with LISA, JCAP 04 JCAP 07 (2020) 032, [arXiv:1912.02569]. (2020) 034, [arXiv:1909.00819]. [34] K. Saikawa and S. Shirai, Precise WIMP Dark Matter [21] J. A. Dror, T. Hiramatsu, K. Kohri, H. Murayama, and Abundance and Standard Model Thermodynamics, G. White, Testing Seesaw and Leptogenesis with JCAP 08 (2020) 011, [arXiv:2005.03544]. Gravitational Waves, arXiv:1908.03227. [35] R. Smits, M. Kramer, B. Stappers, D. R. Lorimer, [22] W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, H. Murayama, and J. Cordes, and A. Faulkner, Pulsar searches and timing K. Schmitz, Probing the scale of grand unification with with the square kilometre array, Astron. Astrophys. 493 gravitational waves, Phys. Lett. B (2020) 135764, (2009) 1161–1170, [arXiv:0811.0211]. [arXiv:1912.03695]. [36] LISA Collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al., Laser [23] S. F. King, S. Pascoli, J. Turner, and Y.-L. Zhou, Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv:1702.00786. Gravitational waves and proton decay: complementary [37] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott windows into GUTs, arXiv:2005.13549. et al., Search for the isotropic stochastic background [24] W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, and K. Schmitz, using data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run, Spontaneous B−L Breaking as the Origin of the Hot Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 6 061101, Early Universe, Nucl. Phys. B862 (2012) 587–632, [arXiv:1903.02886]. [arXiv:1202.6679]. [38] Einstein Telescope Collaboration [25] W. Buchmuller, V. Domcke, K. Kamada, and http://www.et-gw.eu/index.php/etsensitivities. K. Schmitz, The Gravitational Wave Spectrum from [39] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., Planck 2015 Cosmological B − L Breaking, JCAP 1310 (2013) 003, results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. [arXiv:1305.3392]. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13, [arXiv:1502.01589]. [26] L. Leblond, B. Shlaer, and X. Siemens, Gravitational [40] A. Vilenkin, Cosmological evolution of monopoles Waves from Broken Cosmic Strings: The Bursts and connected by strings, Nucl. Phys. B196 (1982) 240–258. the Beads, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 123519,