Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Left-Right Symmetry Breaking

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tuning one quartic coupling makes left-right symmetry breaking visible in gravitational waves.

desk verdict The scan and thermal-mass appendix are genuinely useful, but the LISA benchmark SNR is killed by the unsuppressed sound-wave formula, so the paper needs a serious revision before the quantitative claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02018 v2 pith:MYU7WCDI submitted 2019-09-04 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Vedran Brdar , Lukas Graf , Alexander J. Helmboldt , Xun-Jie Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.CO
keywords left-rightsymmetricmodelfirst-orderphasetransitionstochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundscalartripletsnear-conformaldynamicsLISAseesawmechanismthermaleffectivepotential
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the minimal left-right symmetric model with scalar triplets, usually studied at colliders, can also be probed through the stochastic gravitational-wave background produced when $SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ breaks to the Standard Model gauge group. A first-order phase transition occurs across much of the parameter space, but for generic couplings the resulting gravitational waves are too weak for any planned detector. The paper identifies a systematic correlation: when the quartic coupling $\rho_1$ is tuned down to order $10^{-3}$, the triplet potential becomes nearly scale-invariant, the transition becomes strongly first-order, and the signal enters the reach of space-based interferometers. Concretely, one benchmark point yields signal-to-noise ratio 11.76 at LISA and above $10^3$ at FP-DECIGO, BBO, and ULTIMATE DECIGO. The authors argue that gravitational-wave astronomy is therefore a complementary probe of left-right symmetry and of the seesaw neutrino-mass mechanism embedded in the model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the finite-temperature effective potential restricted to a single scalar direction, $r = \mathrm{Re}\,\delta_R^0/\sqrt{2}$, along which the right-handed triplet VEV $v_R$ develops. The tree-level potential along this direction is $V_0(r) = -\tfrac{1}{2}\mu_3^2 r^2 + \tfrac{1}{4}\rho_1 r^4$, and the quartic coupling $\rho_1$ controls both the barrier and, through the tadpole condition, the size of $\mu_3$; sending $\rho_1$ small pushes $\mu_3/v_R \to 0$ and makes the theory nearly scale-invariant. On top of this tree-level potential the paper adds the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg term, the finite-temperature thermal functions, and daisy-resummed thermal masses, with the full set of thermal self-energies derived in the appendices. From the resulting potential it computes the O(3)-symmetric Euclidean bounce action $S_3$, extracts the phase-transition parameters $\alpha$, $\beta/H$, and $T_n$, and feeds those into the standard sound-wave and magnetohydrodynamic-turbulence formulas that produce the gravitational-wave spectra.

What would settle it

Perform a multi-field bounce calculation for BP3 with the bidoublet and left-triplet directions included; if the resulting $\alpha$ drops below about 0.1 or $\beta/H$ rises well above $10^3$, the LISA SNR of 11.76 would fall below detection threshold. Alternatively, a future measurement of the triplet scalar spectrum that fixes $\rho_1 > 10^{-2}$ would remove the benchmark region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the parity-breaking phase transition in the minimal left-right model with triplet Higgses is commonly first-order but generically too weak to detect, and becomes observable only when the quartic self-coupling $\rho_1$ of the triplet sector is as small as about $10^{-3}$. Small $\rho_1$ drives the triplet mass parameter $\mu_3$ below the breaking scale $v_R$, bringing the direction $r = \mathrm{Re}\,\delta_R^0/\sqrt{2}$ close to classical scale invariance; in that near-conformal regime the transition is strongly first-order, with $\alpha \simeq 0.46$ and $\beta/H \simeq 626$ for the benchmark BP3. With such parameters the predicted stochastic background crosses the power-law integrated sensitivity curves of LISA, BBO, and all three DECIGO stages, giving SNR 11.76 at LISA and above $10^3$ at the more sensitive proposed detectors, whereas the generic benchmarks BP1 and BP2 remain undetectable. The paper also presents the full set of thermal self-energies for the model, which it notes have not previously appeared in the literature.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation of bubble nucleation and gravitational-wave strength assumes the phase transition can be described by the single field $r = \mathrm{Re}\,\delta_R^0/\sqrt{2}$, with the bidoublet and left triplet decoupled; if those fields participate in the tunneling, the derived $T_n$, $\alpha$, and $\beta/H$, and therefore the SNR numbers, could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If BP3-like parameters are realized, LISA should see a stochastic gravitational-wave background from left-right symmetry breaking with SNR around 12, and a null LISA result would exclude that parameter point.
  • FP-DECIGO, BBO, and ULTIMATE DECIGO would detect BP3 and BP4 with SNR above $10^3$, making the predicted spectrum unambiguous at those instruments.
  • Gravitational-wave searches would probe left-right symmetry breaking at scales $v_R$ around 10-50 TeV, beyond the reach of LHC searches.
  • The newly derived thermal self-energies provide a reusable input for studying electroweak baryogenesis in the same model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a detected background of this shape would indirectly measure $\rho_1 \approx 10^{-3}$, tying the gravitational-wave signal to the triplet spectrum and the seesaw parameters in a way the paper does not quantify.
  • Editorial inference: the benchmark SNR numbers likely carry an unquantified error from the single-field reduction; a multi-field bounce calculation for BP3 is the natural check, and could move the LISA SNR either side of the detection threshold.
  • Editorial inference: a null LISA result would not falsify left-right symmetry itself; it would only exclude the near-conformal, small-$\rho_1$ corner of the triplet potential, leaving generic first-order transitions viable but silent.
  • Editorial inference: the same near-conformal transition that amplifies the gravitational wave could supply the departure from equilibrium needed for electroweak baryogenesis, so the model's early-universe history couples the gravitational-wave signal to the matter-antimatter asymmetry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the SU(2)_R × U(1)_{B-L} breaking phase transition in the minimal left-right symmetric model with scalar triplets. The authors construct a one-loop daisy-improved finite-temperature effective potential truncated to the single direction r = Re δ_R^0/√2, scan the scalar parameter space by random sampling with numerical minimization, and select four benchmarks BP1–BP4. For each benchmark they compute the nucleation temperature, the transition strength α, the inverse duration β/H, and the resulting gravitational wave spectrum from sound waves and turbulence. The central claim is that the LR-breaking transition is strongly first order for small triplet quartic coupling ρ1 ~ 10^-3, and that benchmark BP3 is observable at LISA with SNR 11.76 and at FP-DECIGO, BBO, and ULTIMATE DECIGO with SNR above 10^3.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions survive scrutiny, the paper would provide a useful map from left-right model parameters to gravitational-wave observability, including the physically interesting correlation between small ρ1 and strong transitions via near-conformal dynamics. The paper also contributes a complete set of thermal self-energies for the triplet LRSM, which is a useful technical resource. However, the headline LISA claim depends on the unsuppressed sound-wave formula in Eq. (41); the finite-lifetime suppression that is standard in the current literature reduces the BP3 LISA SNR by a factor of about 60. The single-field truncation and the claimed radiative stability of the small-ρ1 benchmarks are also not sufficiently established. The qualitative insight that small ρ1 favors strong transitions may survive, but the quantitative benchmark predictions require substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI, Eq. (41), Table II] The sound-wave contribution in Eq. (41) contains no finite-lifetime suppression factor, and this is load-bearing for the central LISA claim. For BP3, α=0.46 and β/H=626.2, so κ_v=0.369, U_f^2=(3/4)κ_v α/(1+α)=0.087, U_f=0.295, and Hτ_sw=(8π)^{1/3} v_w/((β/H)U_f)=0.016. In the non-runaway regime the acoustic amplitude should be suppressed by min(1,Hτ_sw)≈0.016 relative to Eq. (41), lowering the BP3 LISA SNR from 11.76 to roughly 0.2. The comparison with α∞ only establishes that the bubbles do not run away; it does not remove this suppression. The SNR values in Table II and Fig. 3 therefore need to be recomputed with the updated sound-wave formula incorporating Hτ_sw.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (24), and Section V, Eq. (33)] The tunneling calculation is performed entirely in the single-field direction r=Re δ_R^0/√2, but the model contains the bidoublet fields φ_1^0, φ_2^0 and the left triplet δ_L^0 whose field-dependent masses are given in Appendix A. No multi-field bounce solution is computed, and no check is presented that these directions have positive Hessian eigenvalues along the single-field path. Since α, β/H, and T_n are extracted from S3, this truncation is load-bearing for the reported spectra. The authors should compute the multi-field bounce with a code such as CosmoTransitions (which supports multiple fields) or demonstrate explicitly that the omitted directions decouple during nucleation.
  3. [Section IV, last paragraph, Table I] The claim that the Coleman-Weinberg contribution is tuned to be subdominant for BP3 and BP4 is not supported by the listed parameter values. Using Eq. (26) with μ=v_R and the BP3 value y_M=0.78595, the right-handed neutrino contribution at r=v_R is approximately +1.9×10^14 GeV^4, while the tree-level potential V0(v_R) from Eq. (24) is approximately -2.5×10^12 GeV^4. Thus the radiative correction is about two orders of magnitude larger than the tree-level potential, contradicting the stated radiative stability of the benchmark. Either the renormalization prescription used in the numerical calculation differs from Eq. (26), or the benchmarks need to be re-derived with an explicit demonstration that the one-loop potential preserves the tree-level VEV and mass spectrum.
  4. [Section IV, items 1–2 and NMinimize procedure] The bounded-from-below and global-minimum checks are heuristic: BFB is inferred from divergence of Mathematica's NMinimize, and global-minimum status from repeated random seeds plus equality of depth with the assumed VEV direction. The manuscript itself notes that this yields only a 'high confidence level'. Because the small-ρ1 benchmarks rely on a shallow tree-level potential, this is not merely a formal issue; a shallow potential is particularly vulnerable to undetected deeper minima in other field directions. A deterministic BFB criterion (for example, a systematic scan of field rays) and a more transparent global-minimum scan should be provided for the four benchmarks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, around Eq. (24)] The phrase 'the real part of δ0 r' appears to have a missing subscript; this should be δ_R^0.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (31a)] The notation 'tanβ = tan 10^{-3}' is ambiguous; it should read tanβ = 10^{-3}.
  3. [Section VI, discussion of Fig. 3] The sentence on BP1 and BP2 says their gravitational wave strength 'surpasses the maximal sensitivity reach of ULTIMATE DECIGO' but the surrounding discussion and Fig. 3 indicate the spectra are not detectable because of frequency shift; please rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction.
  4. [Section VI, Eq. (47)] The definition of SNR includes the factor √2 for two-detector configurations and the text correctly drops it for LISA and B-DECIGO, but it would be helpful to state explicitly which configurations are treated as single-detector in the quoted SNR values.
  5. [Appendix B] The thermal self-energies are a useful addition, but a brief derivation or reference for each entry (especially the scalar self-energy coefficients) would increase confidence in the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gravitational-wave predictions are forward outputs from explicitly chosen benchmark parameters, and the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The authors define the LRSM scalar potential, construct the one-loop daisy-improved finite-temperature effective potential, scan the parameter space subject to boundedness, global-minimum, and phenomenological requirements, and then compute the phase-transition parameters (Tn, alpha, beta/H) from the effective potential. The gravitational-wave spectra are obtained by inserting those computed parameters into standard published formulas (Eqs. (40)-(46)), and the SNR values are forward predictions, not fits to any gravitational-wave data. The key claim that small rho1 produces a strong first-order transition is derived from the explicit tadpole relation mu3^2 = rho1 vR^2 + ... (Eq. (23c)) together with the known near-conformal dynamics, not imposed as an input. The benchmark points with rho1 ~ 10^-3 are selected after scanning and are presented as fine-tuned examples, not as a unique prediction, so this is parameter selection, not fitted-input-as-prediction. The self-citations, most notably Ref. [58] (which lists one of the present authors) for the numerical vacuum-structure method and the conclusion that spontaneous CP violation is absent in much of the parameter space, are used as corroborating tools rather than as the sole justification of the central result; the authors also independently minimize the potential with Mathematica and cite the independent Ref. [59] on vacuum stability. No uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force a choice, and no ansatz is smuggled in solely via self-citation; the single-field reduction r = Re(delta^0_R)/sqrt(2) is explicitly stated as an approximation in Section II. The reviewer concern about the sound-wave formula in Eq. (41) lacking finite-lifetime suppression is a physics/correctness risk that could change the quantitative SNR values, but it is not a definitional or self-citational circularity, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model parameters listed are inputs to the effective potential. The quantitative gravitational wave predictions require these values, and none of them are measured. The paper's contribution is to show that a region of parameter space exists, not to derive the couplings from first principles.

free parameters (5)
  • rho1 (triplet quartic coupling) = BP3: 1e-3; BP4: 2e-3; scanned range [0, 0.5]
    Controls the quartic along the r direction and the triplet mass mu3 via the tadpole equation; setting it to 1e-3 is what makes the transition strong.
  • yM (right-handed neutrino Yukawa) = BP3: 0.78595; BP4: 0.52404
    Tuned so that the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg correction does not shift the tree-level vacuum; the reliability of BP3 and BP4 depends on this tuning.
  • vR (right-handed triplet VEV) = BP3: 1e4 GeV; BP4: 5e4 GeV; scan range [1e4, 1e6] GeV
    Sets the breaking scale and the gravitational wave peak frequency; chosen above LHC bounds and within reach of planned space interferometers.
  • other scalar quartics (lambda3, rho2, rho3, rho4, alpha2, alpha3) = BP3: 0.6, 0.900218, 0.900215, 0, 0, 1.14815; BP4: 0.6, 0.401126, 0.401126, 0.040113, 0, 0.378138
    Sampled within Eq. (31) and selected by numerical BFB and global-minimum checks; they enter the thermal masses and spectra but are not the main control of phase transition strength.
  • tan beta (ratio of bidoublet VEVs) = 1e-3 for BP1 and BP2; 0 for BP3 and BP4
    Chosen to be very small or zero so that the bidoublet VEVs approximate the SM Higgs sector; enters the tree-level potential through kappa1 and kappa2.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Minimal LRSM gauge group and particle content with scalar bidoublet and triplet Higgs fields
    The entire analysis is within this well-motivated but non-established extension; the gravitational wave signal depends on this model.
  • domain assumption Discrete left-right symmetry gives equal gauge couplings gL = gR
    Invoked for manifest left-right symmetry in Section II; determines the gauge boson thermal masses.
  • domain assumption One-loop daisy-improved finite-temperature effective potential in Landau gauge and MS scheme is adequate
    Section III; the perturbative potential may be less reliable for large alpha and depends on gauge choices.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-field truncation of the effective potential to r = Re delta^0_R / sqrt(2)
    Section II near Eq. (24); assumes all other neutral fields decouple during the transition, and this is not checked with a multi-field bounce.
  • ad hoc to paper BFB and global minimum can be identified by repeated Mathematica NMinimize, with divergence as a BFB indicator
    Section IV; this is a heuristic numerical check, not a mathematical proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Tree-level potential dominance over Coleman-Weinberg corrections enforced by tuning yM
    Sections IV and VII; the benchmarks are deliberately constructed with this dominance, which is a modeling choice.
  • standard math Gravitational wave spectrum from sound waves and turbulence with parameters alpha, beta/H, Tn, and vw = 1
    Section VI; uses standard fitting formulas from Caprini et al., Ref. [55], and related literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Left-Right Symmetry Breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYU7WCDI

@misc{pith2026190902018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational Waves as a Probe of Left-Right Symmetry Breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYU7WCDI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02018}
}
abstract

Left-right symmetry at high energy scales is a well-motivated extension of the Standard Model. In this paper we consider a typical minimal scenario in which it gets spontaneously broken by scalar triplets. Such a realization has been scrutinized over the past few decades chiefly in the context of collider studies. In this work we take a complementary approach and investigate whether the model can be probed via the search for a stochastic gravitational wave background induced by the phase transition in which $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$ is broken down to the Standard Model gauge symmetry group. A prerequisite for gravitational wave production in this context is a first-order phase transition, the occurrence of which we find in a significant portion of the parameter space. Although the produced gravitational waves are typically too weak for a discovery at any current or future detector, upon investigating correlations between all relevant terms in the scalar potential, we have identified values of parameters leading to observable signals. This indicates that, given a certain moderate fine-tuning, the minimal left-right symmetric model with scalar triplets features another powerful probe which can lead to either novel constraints or remarkable discoveries in the near future. Let us note that some of our results, such as the full set of thermal masses, have to the best of our knowledge not been presented before and might be useful for future studies, in particular in the context of electroweak baryogenesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Finite-temperature effective potential of Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Strength of the LR-breaking phase transition as measured by the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Stochastic gravitational wave spectra for the benchmark points given in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Gravitational Waves of GUT Phase Transition during Inflation

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A general deformation function maps gravitational wave spectra from phase transitions during inflation into today's spectrum; for GUT-scale transitions the peak can appear near 10 Hz or mHz.

  2. Loop-Level Lepton Flavor Violation and Diphoton Signals in the Minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Recasting axion limits onto the one-loop H3 couplings of the minimal left-right symmetric model excludes the right-handed scale up to 2×10^9 GeV and could eventually probe 6×10^11 GeV.

  3. Machine Learning Left-Right Breaking from Gravitational Waves

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An ML-guided scan combined with a high-precision effective field theory finds a small region of the minimal Left-Right Symmetric Model where the first parity-breaking phase transition yields gravitational waves detect...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [54]

    Jaeckel, V

    J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and M. Spannowsky, Hearing the signal of dark sectors with gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 10 103519, [ 1602.03901]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    The potential at the tree level is bounded from below (BFB)

  3. [2]

    (22) From∂Vmin/∂κ1 =∂Vmin/∂κ2 =∂Vmin/∂vR = 0, one can obtain µ2 1 =λ1 ( κ2 1 +κ2 2 ) + 2κ1κ2λ4 + 1 2v2 Rα1− α3 2 v2 R κ2 2 κ2 1−κ2 2 , (23a) µ2 2 = (2λ2 +λ3)κ1κ2 + λ4 2 ( κ2 1 +κ2 2 ) + α2 2 v2 R + α3 4 v2 Rκ1κ2 κ2 1−κ2 2 , (23b) µ2 3 =ρ1v2 R + 1 2α1 ( κ2 1 +κ2 2 ) + 2α2κ1κ2 + 1 2α3κ2 2, (23c) which will be used to determine the quadratic couplings from t...

  4. [3]

    The potential has a global minimum with the predefined VEVs

  5. [4]

    The VEVs satisfy: v≈ 246 GeV and vR & 104 GeV (to make W± R sufficiently heavy and thus satisfy the LHC bounds)

  6. [5]

    The first two requirements are purely theoretical

    The physical spectrum contains a scalar with mass mh≈ 125 GeV and the properties of the SM Higgs boson; all the other bosons (except for the six Goldstone bosons) have masses at the same order as vR. The first two requirements are purely theoretical. So far there has been no straightforward analytical procedure that can be used to thoroughly infer whether ...

    work page

  7. [6]

    The last requirement can be simplified if α1 = 0 and tanβ is small. In this limit, the full SM Higgs mass m2 h = v2 2ρ1 [ 4λ1ρ1−α2 1 +cβsβ (−8α1α2 + 16λ4ρ1) − 2s2 β ( 8α2 2 +α1α3− 8 (2λ2 +λ3)ρ1 ) − 8cβs3 βα2α3 +s4 β ( 16α2 2−α2 3− 16 (2λ2 +λ3)ρ1 )] +O(v4) (30) can be approximated as m2 h≈ 2λ1v2, which requires λ1≈ 1 2m2 h/v2≈ 0.13. Combining the above requ...

    work page 2000

  8. [7]

    non-runaway

    More precisely, for a fixed value of vR, the tadpole equation (23c) entails the following implication ρ1≪ 1 = ⇒ µ3≪vR . (39) In other words, choosingρ1 to be small brings the model’sr sector near its classically scale-invariant limitµ3/vR→ 0. Now, it is well-known that phase transitions in theories based on nearly conformal dynamics are typically strong an...

    work page

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    Scalars In the assumed limit, the mass-squared matrix of the scalar bi-doublet Φ is block diagonal with the same 2× 2 block repeated four times. Thus, it is fully characterized by the aforementioned 2× 2 matrix, which reads M2 Φ(r) =  −µ2 1 + 1 2α1r2 −2µ2 2 +α2r2 −2µ2 2 +α2r...

  2. [9]

    Gauge Fields On the one hand, the charged right-handed gauge bosons have the following field-dependent masses m2 WR(r) = 1 4g2r2. (A7) On the other hand, the mass-squared matrix of neutral gauge bosons in the basis (W 3 L,W 3 R,B ) and again assuming large r reads M2 neutral(r)...

  3. [10]

    (A10) In the limit of large r this is the only relevant fermionic mass that needs to be accounted for

    F ermions The three right-handed neutrinos acquire the field-dependent mass m2 νR(r) = 2y2 Mr2. (A10) In the limit of large r this is the only relevant fermionic mass that needs to be accounted for. Appendix B: Thermal Self-Energies Here, we list the bosonic thermal self-energi...

  4. [11]

    Scalar Bosons The thermal self-energies corresponding to the bi-doublet and the triplet scalars, respectively, can be summarized in a compact way following the parametrization in Eq. (4) as ΠΦ(T ) = T 2 24  20λ1 + 8λ3 + 12α1 + 6α3 + 9g2 + 6y2 t 24(λ4 +α2) 24(λ4 +α2) 20 λ1 + ...

  5. [12]

    Gauge Bosons As for the gauge fields, only their longitudinal components contribute to the daisy improvement in Eq. (29). The thermal self-energy for the charged right-handed gauge bosons is ΠL WR = 3 2g2T 2, (B3) while the thermal self-energy matrix for the neutral gauge fields...

  6. [13]

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton number as the fourth “color” , Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275

    1974

  7. [14]

    Senjanovic and R

    G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Exact left-right symmetry and spontaneous violation of parity , Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502

    1975

  8. [15]

    isoconjugate

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Left-right gauge symmetry and an “isoconjugate” model of cp violation, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 566

    1975

  9. [16]

    R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, “Natural” left-right symmetry , Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2558

    1975

  10. [17]

    R. N. Mohapatra and D. P. Sidhu, Gauge theories of weak interactions with left-right symmetry and the structure of neutral currents , Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 2843

    1977

  11. [18]

    Maiezza, G

    A. Maiezza, G. Senjanovic, and J. C. Vasquez, Higgs sector of the minimal left-right symmetric theory, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017), no. 9 095004, [ 1612.09146]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    N. G. Deshpande, J. F. Gunion, B. Kayser, and F. I. Olness, Left-right symmetric electroweak models with triplet Higgs , Phys. Rev. D44 (1991) 837–858

    1991

  13. [20]

    Senjanovic, Is leftright symmetry the key? , Mod

    G. Senjanovic, Is leftright symmetry the key? , Mod. Phys. Lett. A32 (2017), no. 04 1730004, [1610.04209]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Brdar and A

    V. Brdar and A. Y. Smirnov, Low Scale Left-Right Symmetry and Naturally Small Neutrino Mass , JHEP 02 (2019) 045, [ 1809.09115]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Fileviez Perez, C

    P. Fileviez Perez, C. Murgui, and S. Ohmer, Simple Left-Right Theory: Lepton Number Violation at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 5 051701, [ 1607.00246]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [23]

    R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi´ c, Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912

    1980

  17. [24]

    Yanagida, Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos , Conf

    T. Yanagida, Horizontal Symmetry and Masses of Neutrinos , Conf. Proc. C7902131 (1979) 95

    1979

  18. [25]

    Gell-Mann, P

    M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Complex Spinors and Unified Theories , Conf. Proc. C790927 (1979) 315, [ 1306.4669]

    1979 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Minkowski, µ→eγ at a rate of one out of 109 muon decays?, Physics Letters B 67 (1977), no

    P. Minkowski, µ→eγ at a rate of one out of 109 muon decays?, Physics Letters B 67 (1977), no. 4 421

    1977

  20. [27]

    Fritzsch and P

    H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons , Annals Phys. 93 (1975) 193–266

    1975

  21. [28]

    Georgi, The State of the ArtGauge Theories , AIP Conf

    H. Georgi, The State of the ArtGauge Theories , AIP Conf. Proc. 23 (1975) 575–582

    1975

  22. [29]

    Arbelez, M

    C. Arbelez, M. Hirsch, M. Malinsk, and J. C. Romo, LHC-scale left-right symmetry and unification , Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 3 035002, [ 1311.3228]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [30]

    F. F. Deppisch, T. E. Gonzalo, and L. Graf, Surveying the SO(10) Model Landscape: The Left-Right Symmetric Case, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 5 055003, [ 1705.05416]. 19

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    C.-Y. Chen, P. S. B. Dev, and R. N. Mohapatra, Probing Heavy-Light Neutrino Mixing in Left-Right Seesaw Models at the LHC , Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 033014, [ 1306.2342]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Lindner, F

    M. Lindner, F. S. Queiroz, W. Rodejohann, and C. E. Yaguna, Left-Right Symmetry and Lepton Number Violation at the Large Hadron Electron Collider , JHEP 06 (2016) 140, [ 1604.08596]

    2016 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Patra, F

    S. Patra, F. S. Queiroz, and W. Rodejohann, Stringent Dilepton Bounds on Left-Right Models using LHC data, Phys. Lett. B752 (2016) 186–190, [ 1506.03456]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [34]

    P. S. B. Dev, D. Kim, and R. N. Mohapatra, Disambiguating Seesaw Models using Invariant Mass Variables at Hadron Colliders , JHEP 01 (2016) 118, [ 1510.04328]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Rodriguez and C

    Y. Rodriguez and C. Quimbay, Spontaneous CP phases and flavor changing neutral currents in the left-right symmetric model , Nucl. Phys. B637 (2002) 219–242, [ hep-ph/0203178]

    2002 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Nemevˇ sek, F

    M. Nemevˇ sek, F. Nesti, and G. Popara, Keung-Senjanovi´ c process at the LHC: From lepton number violation to displaced vertices to invisible decays , Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 11 115018, [ 1801.05813]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Witten, Cosmic Separation of Phases , Phys

    E. Witten, Cosmic Separation of Phases , Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 272–285

    1984

  31. [38]

    C. J. Hogan, Nucleation of cosmological phase transitions , Phys. Lett. 133B (1983) 172–176

    1983

  32. [39]

    C. J. Hogan, Gravitational radiation from cosmological phase transitions , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 218 (1986) 629–636

    1986

  33. [40]

    M. S. Turner and F. Wilczek, Relic gravitational waves and extended inflation , Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 3080–3083

    1990

  34. [41]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner, Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 2837–2851, [ astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Grojean and G

    C. Grojean and G. Servant, Gravitational Waves from Phase Transitions at the Electroweak Scale and Beyond, Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 043507, [ hep-ph/0607107]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No, On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Electroweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal , 1809.08242. [JCAP1904,003(2019)]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, The Electroweak phase transition: A Nonperturbative analysis, Nucl. Phys. B466 (1996) 189–258, [ hep-lat/9510020]

    1996 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Is there a hot electroweak phase transition at m(H) larger or equal to m(W)? , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2887–2890, [hep-ph/9605288]

    1996 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, The QCD transition temperature: Results with physical masses in the continuum limit , Phys. Lett. B643 (2006) 46–54, [ hep-lat/0609068]

    2006 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, The Order of the quantum chromodynamics transition predicted by the standard model of particle physics , Nature 443 (2006) 675–678, [hep-lat/0611014]

    2006 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bhattacharya et al., QCD Phase Transition with Chiral Quarks and Physical Quark Masses , Phys

    T. Bhattacharya et al., QCD Phase Transition with Chiral Quarks and Physical Quark Masses , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014), no. 8 082001, [ 1402.5175]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Okada and O

    N. Okada and O. Seto, Probing the seesaw scale with gravitational waves , Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 6 063532, [ 1807.00336]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Brdar, A

    V. Brdar, A. J. Helmboldt, and J. Kubo, Gravitational Waves from First-Order Phase Transitions: LIGO as a Window to Unexplored Seesaw Scales , JCAP 1902 (2019) 021, [ 1810.12306]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [51]

    J. A. Dror, T. Hiramatsu, K. Kohri, H. Murayama, and G. White, Testing Seesaw and Leptogenesis with Gravitational Waves , 1908.03227

    1908 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Hasegawa, N

    T. Hasegawa, N. Okada, and O. Seto, Gravitational waves from the minimal gauged U(1)B−L model, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 9 095039, [ 1904.03020]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Schwaller, Gravitational Waves from a Dark Phase Transition , Phys

    P. Schwaller, Gravitational Waves from a Dark Phase Transition , Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), no. 18 181101, [1504.07263]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    P. S. B. Dev and A. Mazumdar, Probing the Scale of New Physics by Advanced LIGO/VIRGO , Phys. Rev. D93 (2016), no. 10 104001, [ 1602.04203]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Baldes, Gravitational waves from the asymmetric-dark-matter generating phase transition , JCAP 1705 (2017), no

    I. Baldes, Gravitational waves from the asymmetric-dark-matter generating phase transition , JCAP 1705 (2017), no. 05 028, [ 1702.02117]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Baldes and C

    I. Baldes and C. Garcia-Cely, Strong gravitational radiation from a simple dark matter model , JHEP 05 (2019) 190, [ 1809.01198]. 20

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Breitbach, J

    M. Breitbach, J. Kopp, E. Madge, T. Opferkuch, and P. Schwaller, Dark, Cold, and Noisy: Constraining Secluded Hidden Sectors with Gravitational Waves , JCAP 1907 (2019), no. 07 007, [1811.11175]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Fairbairn, E

    M. Fairbairn, E. Hardy, and A. Wickens, Hearing without seeing: gravitational waves from hot and cold hidden sectors, JHEP 07 (2019) 044, [ 1901.11038]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    A. J. Helmboldt, J. Kubo, and S. van der Woude, Observational prospects for gravitational waves from hidden or dark chiral phase transitions , 1904.07891

    1904 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Croon, T

    D. Croon, T. E. Gonzalo, and G. White, Gravitational Waves from a Pati-Salam Phase Transition , JHEP 02 (2019) 083, [ 1812.02747]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Mohamadnejad, Gravitational waves from scale-invariant vector dark matter model: Probing below the neutrino-floor, 1907.08899

    A. Mohamadnejad, Gravitational waves from scale-invariant vector dark matter model: Probing below the neutrino-floor, 1907.08899

    1907 arXiv

  55. [63]

    P. S. B. Dev, F. Ferrer, Y. Zhang, and Y. Zhang, Gravitational Waves from First-Order Phase Transition in a Simple Axion-Like Particle Model , JCAP 1911 (2019), no. 11 006, [ 1905.00891]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Barenboim and N

    G. Barenboim and N. Rius, Electroweak phase transitions in left-right symmetric models , Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 065010, [ hep-ph/9803215]

    1998 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Choi and R

    J. Choi and R. R. Volkas, The Effective potential at finite temperature in the left-right symmetric model, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 1258–1265, [ hep-ph/9210223]

    1993 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sagunski, Gravitational waves as cosmological probes for new physics between the electroweak and the grand-unification scale

    L. Sagunski, Gravitational waves as cosmological probes for new physics between the electroweak and the grand-unification scale. PhD thesis, Hamburg U., 2012

    2012

  59. [67]

    Caprini et al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA

    C. Caprini et al., Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA. II: Gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions, JCAP 1604 (2016), no. 04 001, [ 1512.06239]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    N. Seto, S. Kawamura, and T. Nakamura, Possibility of direct measurement of the acceleration of the universe using 0.1-Hz band laser interferometer gravitational wave antenna in space , Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 221103, [ astro-ph/0108011]

    2001 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Corbin and N

    V. Corbin and N. J. Cornish, Detecting the cosmic gravitational wave background with the big bang observer, Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 2435–2446, [ gr-qc/0512039]

    2006 arXiv

  62. [70]

    P. S. Bhupal Dev, R. N. Mohapatra, W. Rodejohann, and X.-J. Xu, Vacuum structure of the left-right symmetric model, JHEP 02 (2019) 154, [ 1811.06869]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Chauhan, Vacuum Stability and Symmetry Breaking in Left-Right Symmetric Model , 1907.07153

    G. Chauhan, Vacuum Stability and Symmetry Breaking in Left-Right Symmetric Model , 1907.07153

    1907 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Nemevˇ sek, F

    M. Nemevˇ sek, F. Nesti, and J. C. Vasquez, Majorana Higgses at colliders , JHEP 04 (2017) 114, [1612.06840]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. D. Linde, Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature , Nucl. Phys. B216 (1983) 421. [Erratum: Nucl. Phys.B223,544(1983)]

    1983

  66. [74]

    C. L. Wainwright, CosmoTransitions: Computing Cosmological Phase Transition Temperatures and Bubble Profiles with Multiple Fields , Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2006–2013, [ 1109.4189]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Servant, Energy Budget of Cosmological First-order Phase Transitions, JCAP 1006 (2010) 028, [ 1004.4187]

    2010 arXiv

  68. [76]

    M´ egevand and S

    A. M´ egevand and S. Ram´ ırez,Bubble nucleation and growth in very strong cosmological phase transitions, Nucl. Phys. B919 (2017) 74–109, [ 1611.05853]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Konstandin and G

    T. Konstandin and G. Servant, Cosmological Consequences of Nearly Conformal Dynamics at the TeV scale, JCAP 1112 (2011) 009, [ 1104.4791]

    2011 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Kosowsky, M

    A. Kosowsky, M. S. Turner, and R. Watkins, Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles , Phys. Rev. D 45 (Jun, 1992) 4514–4535

    1992

  71. [79]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir, Gravitational waves from the sound of a first order phase transition , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 041301, [ 1304.2433]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Caprini and R

    C. Caprini and R. Durrer, Gravitational waves from stochastic relativistic sources: Primordial turbulence and magnetic fields , Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 063521, [ astro-ph/0603476]

    2006 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Kuroyanagi, S

    S. Kuroyanagi, S. Tsujikawa, T. Chiba, and N. Sugiyama, Implications of the B-mode Polarization Measurement for Direct Detection of Inflationary Gravitational Waves , Phys. Rev. D90 (2014), no. 6 063513, [1406.1369]

    2014 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Thrane and J

    E. Thrane and J. D. Romano, Sensitivity curves for searches for gravitational-wave backgrounds , Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), no. 12 124032, [ 1310.5300]

    2013 arXiv

  75. [83]

    C. J. Moore, R. H. Cole, and C. P. L. Berry, Gravitational-wave sensitivity curves , Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015), no. 1 015014, [ 1408.0740]. 21

    2015 arXiv

  76. [84]

    M. E. Carrington, The Effective potential at finite temperature in the Standard Model , Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) 2933–2944

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.