Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions in conformal Majoron models of neutrino mass

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read If LIGO and ET see no gravitational-wave background, a high-scale seesaw in conformal Majoron models is disfavored.

desk verdict Solid, careful map of GW signals from conformal U(1)' Majoron models, but the sharp LVK exclusion contours outrun the acknowledged template uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02645 v3 pith:K2XUZU4V submitted 2024-12-03 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

João Gonçalves , Danny Marfatia , António P. Morais , Roman Pasechnik This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords gravitationalwavesstochasticwavebackgroundsupercooledphasetransitionconformalMajoronmodeltype-IseesawU(1)gaugeextensionLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAconstraintsLISAsensitivity
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 argues that current and future gravitational-wave observatories can directly test the mechanism behind neutrino masses. In a wide class of classically scale-invariant U(1)' Majoron-like models, the same symmetry breaking that gives mass to right-handed neutrinos also drives a strongly supercooled first-order phase transition, which would emit a stochastic gravitational-wave background loud enough for LIGO, LISA, and the Einstein Telescope. If those experiments detect nothing, the paper claims that large regions of parameter space, including strong supercooling and type-I seesaw scales above $10^{14}$ GeV, would be disfavored or excluded. Conversely, a detected high-frequency background would point to heavy right-handed neutrinos. This matters because it connects neutrino physics to cosmology at energies far beyond collider reach.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the renormalization-group-improved four-dimensional thermal effective potential for the Majoron field $\sigma$, $V_{\rm eff} = \frac{1}{4}\lambda_\sigma(t) Z_\sigma^2(t)\sigma^4 + V_{\rm CW} + V_T + V_{\rm Daisy}$, where the Coleman-Weinberg and thermal contributions come from the $Z'$ boson and the three right-handed neutrinos. This potential, combined with the bounce action computed with CosmoTransitions, yields the nucleation, percolation, and reheating temperatures that feed the LISA Cosmology Working Group spectral templates for sound waves and bubble collisions. The key parametric relations are the loop-induced relation $\lambda_\sigma \sim g_L^4$, the minimization condition $V_{\rm min} \sim v_\sigma^4(-96g_L^4 + {\rm Tr}(y_\sigma^4))$, and the seesaw relation $M_N \sim v_\sigma y_\sigma/\sqrt{2}$, which together tie the gravitational-wave peak frequency and amplitude to the U(1)' breaking scale and the neutrino Yukawa sector.

What would settle it

Take benchmark point (b), which the paper predicts LIGO-O5 would see with SNR of about 29 after four years, and recompute its SGWB using a dimensionally reduced 3D effective field theory instead of the 4D RG-improved potential; if the resulting peak amplitude drops by more than an order of magnitude, the exclusion contours would not survive. Equivalently, a four-year LIGO-O5 run that places an upper limit below the predicted BP(b) spectrum would refute the claim that this point is detectable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a null result from LIGO, LISA, and ET would constitute a meaningful probe of the conformal Majoron parameter space. Concretely, for the U(1)$_{B-L}$ case the paper finds that current LVK data already exclude $M_{Z'} \sim 10 M_{h_2}$ above $10^{13}$ GeV with $g_L \sim 0.3$ and $\mathrm{Tr}(y_\sigma) < O(0.1)$. A non-observation at LIGO-O5 and ET would disfavor strong supercooling ($g_L \lesssim 0.4$) for $Z'$ masses above $10^9$ GeV, and would rule out a type-I seesaw scale with $M_{N_i} \gtrsim 10^{14}$ GeV and $y_\nu \sim O(1)$. LISA would remain sensitive to seesaw scales as low as a TeV, even when the right-handed neutrinos are decoupled. The paper also establishes a direct correlation between the peak frequency of the background and the size of the Dirac neutrino Yukawa coupling, so the frequency band of a future detection would identify the seesaw scale.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on the reliability of the gravitational-wave spectral templates and their energy-budget efficiency factors; varying the sound-wave efficiency $\kappa_{\rm SW}$ from 0.01 to 1 changes the predicted amplitude by about three orders of magnitude, so if the templates overestimate the emission, the exclusion and disfavor statements would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current LVK data already exclude the U(1)$_{B-L}$ model for $M_{Z'} \sim 10 M_{h_2} > 10^{13}$ GeV, $g_L \sim 0.3$, and ${\rm Tr}(y_\sigma) < O(0.1)$.
  • A null result at LIGO-O5 and ET would disfavor strong supercooling ($g_L \lesssim 0.4$) for $Z'$ masses above $10^9$ GeV, and would exclude a type-I seesaw scale with $M_{N_i} \gtrsim 10^{14}$ GeV and $y_\nu \sim O(1)$.
  • A positive high-frequency signal would be a signature of heavy right-handed neutrinos, because with decoupled right-handed neutrinos the GW spectrum is suppressed below 0.1 Hz.
  • LISA would test strong supercooling at $Z'$ masses of order 10 TeV and could detect a background even if the right-handed neutrinos are decoupled, probing $y_\nu$ down to $10^{-6}$.
  • For a given mass, the gravitational-wave spectrum is almost independent of the Higgs charge $x_H$, so gravitational-wave data alone cannot single out a specific U(1)' model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the spectral templates overestimate the sound-wave efficiency, the exclusion contours would shrink; the paper's own uncertainty analysis shows that varying $\kappa_{\rm SW}$ from 0.01 to 1 changes the predicted amplitude by roughly three orders of magnitude, so the exclusion statements carry that theoretical systematic.
  • The paper's reheating-temperature treatment implies that supercooled models with low percolation temperatures produce backgrounds at higher frequencies than a naive redshift from $T_p$ would suggest, which would make the nanohertz band less accessible to low-scale versions of these models.
  • A sharper cross-check would be to compare the predicted peak-frequency--seesaw-scale correlation across the U(1)$_{B-L}$ and generic charge assignments; a future detection with a spectrum that matches the template shapes but falls outside the predicted amplitude-frequency region would indicate incorrect efficiency-factor assumptions.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds (SGWB) from strongly supercooled first-order phase transitions in a class of classically scale-invariant U(1)' extensions of the Standard Model with a Majoron-like scalar and a type-I seesaw. The authors build a 4D RG-improved thermal effective potential with one-loop and Daisy corrections, compute the Euclidean bounce action with CosmoTransitions (validated against their own code and against previous results in Refs. [15,21,22]), and scan over U(1)' charges, gauge coupling, the heavy scalar mass, and right-handed neutrino Yukawa couplings. They use the LISA Cosmology Working Group spectral templates to predict SGWB spectra and signal-to-noise ratios for LVK, LIGO-O5, ET, and LISA. The main results are correlations between the seesaw scale and the SGWB peak frequency, and a set of exclusion/projection contours: current LVK data are claimed to exclude MZ' above about 10^13 GeV for small Tr(yσ), a future null result at LIGO/ET would disfavor type-I seesaw scales above roughly 10^14 GeV, and LISA would probe seesaw scales as low as a TeV, even for decoupled right-handed neutrinos.

Significance. If the central predictions hold, the paper is a valuable phenomenological map: it connects neutrino physics to GW observables across a very wide range of scales, provides explicit benchmark points, and makes falsifiable statements that can be tested by current and near-future instruments. The manuscript is unusually transparent about the main sources of uncertainty in Section 4.2, and the numerical workflow is carefully cross-checked against existing codes and published results, including successful reproduction of Refs. [15,21,22]. The novelty relative to earlier B-L studies lies mainly in the generic charge assignment scan and in highlighting how the right-handed neutrino sector shapes high-frequency GW signals. The significance is moderate: the model class is specific, but the methodology and the neutrino-mass/GW connection are of general interest, and the paper provides concrete benchmarks for LISA, LIGO, and ET.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figs. 13-17, Eq. (5.3)] The central exclusion and 'rule-out' statements are built on SNR > 10 computed with fixed spectral templates, but the same section demonstrates that the predicted amplitude is uncertain by orders of magnitude. Fig. 4(a) shows that varying κ_SW from 0.01 to 1 changes h²Ω_GW by about three orders of magnitude, and panels (b)-(d) show comparable sensitivity to the bubble-radius distribution, wall velocity, and percolation condition. The contours in Figs. 13-17 are drawn as sharp boundaries, and the 'minimum SNR' procedure described in Section 5.1.4 minimizes only over the scanned model parameters, not over the template and efficiency uncertainties. Because the headline claims (e.g., the LVK exclusion of MZ' ≳ 10^13 GeV in Fig. 17, and the ET-based disfavoring of seesaw scales above ~10^14 GeV in the abstract) are quantitative, the authors should either propagate the Section 4.2 uncertainties into the SNR contours or explicitly qualify the claims as holding under the fiducial template assumptions. As it stands, the robustness of the main conclusions is not established.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (3.9); Figs. 6, 13-17] Several points in the scan satisfy the percolation condition only at temperatures below Tp, and the paper itself states that it is 'unclear whether percolation is guaranteed' in these cases. The dashed contours in Figs. 6 and 13-17 mark such points, but the solid SNR>10 exclusion contours appear to be drawn without clearly excluding them. Please clarify whether the solid contours are restricted to points satisfying Eq. (3.9), and if not, state how the possibility of incomplete percolation is accounted for in the 'excluded' and 'disfavored' statements. If the ambiguous points are included, the constraints should be re-evaluated using only the subset with assured percolation.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4.15)] The 4D RG-improved effective potential is used throughout, with the scale choice µ = max[M_Z'(ϕ), κT]. The discussion in Section 4 argues that the 3D EFT is not reliable in the deeply supercooled regime, but it does not provide a quantitative estimate of the scheme dependence of the 4D calculation for the large-α points that dominate the high-frequency exclusion regions. Since values of α up to 10^20 and percolation temperatures approaching the QCD scale are used, a robustness check (for example, varying κT by a factor of a few for representative benchmark points and showing the resulting shift in the SNR contours) would be needed to support the precision of the exclusion boundaries. This is a second unquantified source of uncertainty in the same load-bearing predictions, even though it may not change the qualitative picture.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The wording is not uniform: the abstract says strong supercooling 'can be ruled out,' while the Section 6 bullets use 'disfavored' for a null result. Please align the strength of the language with the actual SNR-based procedure.
  2. [Section 6 and Fig. 24] The statement that 'a signal at high frequencies will favor U(1)B−L' appears to conflict with the same section's conclusion (and with Fig. 24) that the SGWB is not sensitive to xH and that the xH-induced frequency shift is smaller than the theoretical uncertainties. Please reconcile these statements.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption and Section 3] The caption defines the percolation condition as I(Tp) = 1 in panels (d), while the text uses I(Tp) = 0.34; please define both conventions explicitly at first use and state which one is used for the main results.
  4. [Eq. (2.19)] The displayed expressions for M²_h1 and M²_h2 introduce Σ, Φh, and Φσ, but the final formulae appear to depend on only some of these combinations; please check the definitions and notation for consistency.
  5. [Section 5.1.4] The acronym 'LVK' is used without expansion; please define LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA at first appearance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SGWB predictions and exclusion contours are computed from an independent finite-temperature effective potential and external spectral templates, not fitted to GW data.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the model Lagrangian (Sec. 2) through the RG-improved finite-temperature effective potential (Sec. 4.1), the nucleation/percolation framework (Sec. 3), and the SGWB spectral templates (Eqs. 3.15–3.28) to the SNR-based exclusion contours (Eq. 5.3, Figs. 13–17). The model parameters in Table 2 are scanned, not fitted to gravitational-wave data; the LVK, LIGO-O5, ET, and LISA projections are obtained by convolving the predicted h^2 Omega_GW(f) with external sensitivity curves and requiring SNR > 10. No equation is defined in terms of the headline result, and no output quantity is a renamed fitted parameter. The co-author self-citations that do appear are not load-bearing in a circular sense: Ref. [46] supplies the thermalization condition MNi Ki >~ 5 Tc used as an input assumption for the dark-sector thermal bath, and Ref. [83] supplies an externally derived bubble-radius-distribution correction to the GW templates. Even if those inputs were wrong, the error would be a physical/parametric uncertainty, not a logical reduction of the prediction to its own inputs. The paper itself quantifies template and efficiency-factor uncertainties in Sec. 4.2 (e.g., Fig. 4a, varying kappa_SW by two orders of magnitude shifts the amplitude by about three orders of magnitude), but that is a robustness caveat, not circularity. I therefore find no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction or of a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis scans over model parameters (g_L, charges, M_h2, y_sigma) and imports standard phase-transition and gravitational-wave template machinery; no new particles or forces are invented. The main assumptions are classical scale invariance, U(1)' anomaly cancellation, near-complete thermalization, the 4D RG-improved potential, and the reliability of the LISA Cosmology Working Group templates.

free parameters (4)
  • g_L = 0.20 to 1.0 scanned; FOPT window 0.26 to 0.62
    U(1)' gauge coupling controls the phase transition strength and SGWB amplitude; it is a central variable in the exclusion plots.
  • x_H and x_sigma = x_H in [-2,2], x_sigma in [0,5], rational values; B-L fixed to (0,2)
    U(1)' charge assignments define the model and enter the beta functions, Debye mass, and scalar potential.
  • M_h2 = 150 to 10^18 GeV sampled; benchmarks at 2.91e4, 6.25e10, 9.45e11 GeV
    Mass of the second heavy scalar is a free parameter that fixes v_sigma and M_Z' through one-loop minimization and sets the peak frequency.
  • Tr(y_sigma) = 10^-10 to 1 sampled; benchmarks 0.16, 0.063, 2.5e-4
    Majorana Yukawa trace controls heavy neutrino masses and the RG running of lambda_sigma; large values shift spectra to high frequencies.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Classical scale invariance of the full action at tree level
    Removes all dimensionful parameters and forces radiative symmetry breaking, which is the mechanism producing supercooling; used throughout Section 2.
  • domain assumption Anomaly-free U(1)' charges with flavor universality from Ref. [26]
    Adopted in Section 2, Table 1; restricts the allowed models and requires three right-handed neutrinos.
  • domain assumption Dark sector fully thermalizes with the SM above the electroweak scale
    Section 3: sets g* and the Hubble rate, and justifies the Delta_Neff constraint; the decoupled case is analyzed separately in Section 5.1.3.
  • ad hoc to paper 4D RG-improved effective potential is valid in the strongly supercooled regime
    Section 4, first paragraph: the paper subscribes to the 4D approach following Ref. [22] and argues that the 3D EFT derivative expansion breaks down; this methodological choice underlies all results.
  • domain assumption Standard SGWB spectral templates and efficiency factors from Ref. [53] and Refs. [16, 17, 61]
    Section 3: the amplitude and frequency relations are imported from the literature; their uncertainty is quantified but not propagated into the exclusion contours.
  • domain assumption Percolation criterion I(T_p) = 0.34 and bubble wall velocity v_w = 1 for supercooled bubbles
    Section 3: an alternative I(T_p) = 1 is checked and found similar, but the wall-velocity uncertainty shifts weaker signals and affects exclusion boundaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions in conformal Majoron models of neutrino mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K2XUZU4V

@misc{pith2026241202645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions in conformal Majoron models of neutrino mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K2XUZU4V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02645}
}
abstract

We study supercooled first-order phase transitions above the QCD scale in a wide class of conformal Majoron-like U(1)' models that explain the totality of active neutrino oscillation data and produce a detectable stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) at LIGO, LISA and ET. We place constraints on the U(1)' breaking scale and gauge coupling using current LIGO-Virgo-Kagra data. We find that strong supercooling can be ruled out in large regions of parameter space if a SGWB is not detected by these experiments. A null signal at LIGO and ET will disfavor a type-I seesaw scale above $10^{14}$ GeV, while a positive signal is a signature of heavy right-handed neutrinos. On the other hand, LISA will be sensitive to seesaw scales as low as a TeV, and could detect a SGWB even if the right-handed neutrinos are decoupled.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Supercooled phase transitions in conformal dark sectors explain NANOGrav data

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A conformal dark U(1)' sector undergoing a strongly supercooled first-order phase transition can fit the NANOGrav 15-year gravitational wave background.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

102 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [15]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and V. Vaskonen,Updated predictions for gravitational waves produced in a strongly supercooled phase transition, JCAP 11 (2020) 020, [2007.15586]

    arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    D’Onofrio and K

    M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen,Standard model cross-over on the lattice, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016), no. 2 025003, [1508.07161]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    Fodor and S

    Z. Fodor and S. D. Katz,Critical point of QCD at finite T and mu, lattice results for physical quark masses, JHEP 04 (2004) 050, [hep-lat/0402006]

    arXiv 2004

  4. [3]

    LIGO Scientific, VirgoCollaboration, B. P. Abbottet al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), no. 6 061102, [1602.03837]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    Agazieet al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys

    NANOGrav Collaboration, G. Agazieet al., The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023), no. 1 L8, [2306.16213]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Search for an Isotropic Gravitational-wave Background with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951 (2023), no. 1 L6, [2306.16215]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Antoniadiset al., The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III

    EPTA, InPTA:Collaboration, J. Antoniadiset al., The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array - III. Search for gravitational wave signals, Astron. Astrophys. 678 (2023) A50, [2306.16214]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    Xuet al., Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res

    H. Xuet al., Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 23 (2023), no. 7 075024, [2306.16216]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 102 references
  1. [8]

    Shaposhnikov and A

    M. Shaposhnikov and A. Tokareva,Exact quantum conformal symmetry, its spontaneous breakdown, and gravitational Weyl anomaly, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023), no. 6 065015, [2212.09770]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    P. P. Srivastava,Conformal symmetry in lagrangian field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 64 (1973) 499–510

    1973

  3. [10]

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg,Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973) 1888–1910

    1973

  4. [11]

    Gildener and S

    E. Gildener and S. Weinberg,Symmetry Breaking and Scalar Bosons, Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 3333

    1976

  5. [12]

    Ahriche, S

    A. Ahriche, S. Kanemura, and M. Tanaka,Gravitational waves from phase transitions in scale invariant models, JHEP 01 (2024) 201, [2308.12676]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Jaeckel, V

    J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and M. Spannowsky,Hearing the signal of dark sectors with gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016), no. 10 103519, [1602.03901]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Marzo, L

    C. Marzo, L. Marzola, and V. Vaskonen,Phase transition and vacuum stability in the classically conformal B–L model, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019), no. 7 601, [1811.11169]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, J. M. No, and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational wave energy budget in strongly supercooled phase transitions, JCAP 06 (2019) 024, [1903.09642]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jinno, T

    R. Jinno, T. Konstandin, H. Rubira, and I. Stomberg,Higgsless simulations of cosmological phase transitions and gravitational waves, JCAP 02 (2023) 011, [2209.04369]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hambye, A

    T. Hambye, A. Strumia, and D. Teresi,Super-cool Dark Matter, JHEP 08 (2018) 188, [1805.01473]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Baldes and C

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

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Marfatia and P.-Y

    D. Marfatia and P.-Y. Tseng,Gravitational wave signals of dark matter freeze-out, JHEP 02 (2021) 022, [2006.07313]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kierkla, A

    M. Kierkla, A. Karam, and B. Swiezewska,Conformal model for gravitational waves and dark matter: a status update, JHEP 03 (2023) 007, [2210.07075]. – 44 –

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kierkla, B

    M. Kierkla, B. Swiezewska, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. van de Vis,Gravitational waves from supercooled phase transitions: dimensional transmutation meets dimensional reduction, JHEP 02 (2024) 234, [2312.12413]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei,Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number and Cosmological Constraints on the Neutrino Mass Spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980) 1926

    1980

  16. [24]

    Chikashige, R

    Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei,Are There Real Goldstone Bosons Associated with Broken Lepton Number?, Phys. Lett. B 98 (1981) 265–268

    1981

  17. [25]

    G. B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli,Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale and Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number, Phys. Lett. B 99 (1981) 411–415

    1981

  18. [26]

    S. Oda, N. Okada, and D.-s. Takahashi,Classically conformal U(1)’ extended standard model and Higgs vacuum stability, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 1 015026, [1504.06291]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. Iso, N. Okada, and Y. Orikasa,Classically conformal B − L extended Standard Model, Phys. Lett. B 676 (2009) 81–87, [0902.4050]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cordero-Carrión, M

    I. Cordero-Carrión, M. Hirsch, and A. Vicente,General parametrization of Majorana neutrino mass models, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), no. 7 075032, [1912.08858]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. A. Casas and A. Ibarra,Oscillating neutrinos and µ → e, γ, Nucl. Phys. B 618 (2001) 171–204, [hep-ph/0103065]

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Esteban, M

    I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and A. Zhou,The fate of hints: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP 09 (2020) 178, [2007.14792]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Aghanimet al., Planck 2018 results

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanimet al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [1807.06209]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Costa, A

    R. Costa, A. P. Morais, M. O. P. Sampaio, and R. Santos,Two-loop stability of a complex singlet extended Standard Model, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) 025024, [1411.4048]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V. V. Khoze, C. McCabe, and G. Ro,Higgs vacuum stability from the dark matter portal, JHEP 08 (2014) 026, [1403.4953]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [34]

    del Aguila, G

    F. del Aguila, G. D. Coughlan, and M. Quiros,Gauge Coupling Renormalization With Several U(1) Factors, Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988) 633. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 312, 751 (1989)]

    1988

  27. [35]

    Aadet al., Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb−1 of pp collision data collected at√s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    ATLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., Search for high-mass dilepton resonances using 139 fb−1 of pp collision data collected at√s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B 796 (2019) 68–87, [1903.06248]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    ATLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet al., Search for additional heavy neutral Higgs and gauge bosons in the ditau final state produced in 36 fb−1 of pp collisions at√s = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2018) 055, [1709.07242]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ATLASCollaboration, M. Aaboudet al., Search for resonances in the mass distribution of jet pairs with one or two jets identified asb-jets in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032016, [1805.09299]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aadet al., Search for tt resonances in fully hadronic final states inpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2020) 061, [2005.05138]

    ATLASCollaboration, G. Aadet al., Search for tt resonances in fully hadronic final states inpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 10 (2020) 061, [2005.05138]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Schaelet al., Precision electroweak measurements on theZ resonance, Phys

    ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, SLD Heavy Flavour GroupCollaboration, S. Schaelet al., Precision electroweak measurements on theZ resonance, Phys. Rept. 427 (2006) 257–454, [hep-ex/0509008]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Coriano, L

    C. Coriano, L. Delle Rose, and C. Marzo,Constraints on abelian extensions of the Standard Model from two-loop vacuum stability andU (1)B−L, JHEP 02 (2016) 135, [1510.02379]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    A. D. Linde,Decay of the False Vacuum at Finite Temperature, Nucl. Phys. B 216 (1983) 421. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]. – 45 –

    1983

  34. [42]

    S. R. Coleman,The Fate of the False Vacuum. 1. Semiclassical Theory, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977) 2929–2936. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 16, 1248 (1977)]

    1977

  35. [43]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balázs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, and L. Wu,Cosmological phase transitions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135 (2024) 104094, [2305.02357]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    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

  37. [45]

    Husdal,On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe, Galaxies 4 (2016), no

    L. Husdal,On Effective Degrees of Freedom in the Early Universe, Galaxies 4 (2016), no. 4 78, [1609.04979]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Di Bari, D

    P. Di Bari, D. Marfatia, and Y.-L. Zhou,Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in Majoron models of neutrino mass, JHEP 10 (2021) 193, [2106.00025]

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Di Bari, K

    P. Di Bari, K. Farrag, R. Samanta, and Y. L. Zhou,Density matrix calculation of the dark matter abundance in the Higgs induced right-handed neutrino mixing model, JCAP 10 (2020) 029, [1908.00521]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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, JCAP 04 (2019) 003, [1809.08242]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Athron, A

    P. Athron, A. Fowlie, C.-T. Lu, L. Morris, L. Wu, Y. Wu, and Z. Xu,Can Supercooled Phase Transitions Explain the Gravitational Wave Background Observed by Pulsar Timing Arrays?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024), no. 22 221001, [2306.17239]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Capriniet al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024, [1910.13125]

    C. Capriniet al., Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update, JCAP 03 (2020) 024, [1910.13125]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. S. Turner, E. J. Weinberg, and L. M. Widrow,Bubble nucleation in first order inflation and other cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 2384–2403

    1992

  44. [52]

    Enqvist, J

    K. Enqvist, J. Ignatius, K. Kajantie, and K. Rummukainen,Nucleation and bubble growth in a first order cosmological electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 3415–3428

    1992

  45. [53]

    Caprini, R

    LISA Cosmology Working GroupCollaboration, C. Caprini, R. Jinno, M. Lewicki, E. Madge, M. Merchand, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Roper Pol, and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational waves from first-order phase transitions in LISA: reconstruction pipeline and physics interpretation, 2403.03723

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    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

  47. [55]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir,Numerical simulations of acoustically generated gravitational waves at a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015), no. 12 123009, [1504.03291]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hindmarsh, S

    M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen, and D. J. Weir,Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017), no. 10 103520, [1704.05871]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Kosowsky, M

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

    1992

  50. [58]

    Kosowsky and M

    A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from colliding vacuum bubbles: envelope approximation to many bubble collisions, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4372–4391, [astro-ph/9211004]

    1993 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Kamionkowski, A

    M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and M. S. Turner,Gravitational radiation from first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2837–2851, [astro-ph/9310044]

    1994 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant,The stochastic gravitational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fields generated by a first-order phase transition, JCAP 12 (2009) 024, [0909.0622]. – 46 –

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Lewicki and V

    M. Lewicki and V. Vaskonen,Gravitational waves from bubble collisions and fluid motion in strongly supercooled phase transitions, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023), no. 2 109, [2208.11697]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore,Can electroweak bubble walls run away?, JCAP 05 (2009) 009, [0903.4099]

    2009 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Bodeker and G

    D. Bodeker and G. D. Moore,Electroweak Bubble Wall Speed Limit, JCAP 05 (2017) 025, [1703.08215]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No,Gravitational waves from first-order cosmological phase transitions: lifetime of the sound wave source, JCAP 07 (2020) 050, [2003.07360]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Chataignier, T

    L. Chataignier, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt, and B. Świeżewska,Systematic analysis of radiative symmetry breaking in models with extended scalar sector, JHEP 08 (2018) 083, [1805.09292]

    2018 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Chataignier, T

    L. Chataignier, T. Prokopec, M. G. Schmidt, and B. Swiezewska,Single-scale Renormalisation Group Improvement of Multi-scale Effective Potentials, JHEP 03 (2018) 014, [1801.05258]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Gould, S

    O. Gould, S. Güyer, and K. Rummukainen,First-order electroweak phase transitions: A nonperturbative update, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), no. 11 114507, [2205.07238]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Kainulainen, V

    K. Kainulainen, V. Keus, L. Niemi, K. Rummukainen, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and V. Vaskonen,On the validity of perturbative studies of the electroweak phase transition in the Two Higgs Doublet model, JHEP 06 (2019) 075, [1904.01329]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [69]

    P. M. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and J. Österman,Robust approach to thermal resummation: Standard Model meets a singlet, JHEP 06 (2021) 130, [2102.11145]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Niemi, P

    L. Niemi, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Singlet-assisted electroweak phase transition at two loops, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021), no. 11 115035, [2103.07467]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Schicho, T

    P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White,Combining thermal resummation and gauge invariance for electroweak phase transition, JHEP 11 (2022) 047, [2203.04284]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Croon, O

    D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White,Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions, JHEP 04 (2021) 055, [2009.10080]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Hirvonen, J

    J. Hirvonen, J. Löfgren, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,Computing the gauge-invariant bubble nucleation rate in finite temperature effective field theory, JHEP 07 (2022) 135, [2112.08912]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    K. A. Meissner and H. Nicolai,Renormalization Group and Effective Potential in Classically Conformal Theories, Acta Phys. Polon. B 40 (2009) 2737–2752, [0809.1338]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Quiros,Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions, in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology, pp

    M. Quiros,Finite temperature field theory and phase transitions, in ICTP Summer School in High-Energy Physics and Cosmology, pp. 187–259, 1, 1999. hep-ph/9901312

    1999 arXiv

  68. [76]

    D. J. Gross, R. D. Pisarski, and L. G. Yaffe,QCD and Instantons at Finite Temperature, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 43

    1981

  69. [77]

    R. R. Parwani,Resummation in a hot scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 4695, [hep-ph/9204216]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 48, 5965 (1993)]

    1992 arXiv

  70. [78]

    P. B. Arnold and O. Espinosa,The Effective potential and first order phase transitions: Beyond leading-order, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3546, [hep-ph/9212235]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 50, 6662 (1994)]

    1993 arXiv

  71. [79]

    J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, and F. Zwirner,On the nature of the electroweak phase transition, Phys. Lett. B 314 (1993) 206–216, [hep-ph/9212248]

    1993 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Vuorinen,Basics of Thermal Field Theory, vol. 925. Springer, 2016

    2016

  73. [81]

    Brauner, T

    T. Brauner, T. V. I. Tenkanen, A. Tranberg, A. Vuorinen, and D. J. Weir,Dimensional reduction of the Standard Model coupled to a new singlet scalar field, JHEP 03 (2017) 007, [1609.06230]. – 47 –

    2017 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ekstedt, P

    A. Ekstedt, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen,DRalgo: A package for effective field theory approach for thermal phase transitions, Comput. Phys. Commun. 288 (2023) 108725, [2205.08815]

    2023 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Marfatia, P.-Y

    D. Marfatia, P.-Y. Tseng, and Y.-M. Yeh,Phenomenology of bubble size distributions in a first-order phase transition, 2407.15419

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    P. Lu, K. Kawana, and K.-P. Xie,Old phase remnants in first-order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022), no. 12 123503, [2202.03439]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Abbottet al., Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run, Phys

    KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO ScientificCollaboration, R. Abbottet al., Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 104 (2021), no. 2 022004, [2101.12130]

    2021

  78. [86]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    LISA Collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Yagi and N

    K. Yagi and N. Seto,Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identification of cosmological neutron-star binaries, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 044011, [1101.3940]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 109901 (2017)]

    2011 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Aasiet al., Advanced LIGO, Class

    LIGO ScientificCollaboration, J. Aasiet al., Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 32 (2015) 074001, [1411.4547]

    2015 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 194002

    2010

  82. [90]

    swiss cheese

    C. D. Lorenz and R. M. Ziff,Precise determination of the critical percolation threshold for the three-dimensional “swiss cheese” model using a growth algorithm, The Journal of Chemical Physics 114 (2001) 3659–3661

    2001

  83. [91]

    Lin and H

    J. Lin and H. Chen,Continuum percolation of porous media via random packing of overlapping cube-like particles, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters 8 (2018), no. 5 299–303

    2018

  84. [92]

    M. Li, H. Chen, and J. Lin,Numerical study for the percolation threshold and transport properties of porous composites comprising non-centrosymmetrical superovoidal pores, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 361 (2020) 112815

    2020

  85. [93]

    H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie, and G. White,The benefits of diligence: how precise are predicted gravitational wave spectra in models with phase transitions?, JHEP 06 (2021) 164, [2103.06933]

    2021 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, and M. Zych,Bubble-wall velocity in local thermal equilibrium: hydrodynamical simulations vs analytical treatment, JHEP 05 (2024) 011, [2402.15408]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent, and J. van de Vis,Model-independent bubble wall velocities in local thermal equilibrium, JCAP 07 (2023) 002, [2303.10171]

    2023 arXiv

  88. [96]

    P. J. Steinhardt,Relativistic Detonation Waves and Bubble Growth in False Vacuum Decay, Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 2074

    1982

  89. [97]

    S. Iso, P. D. Serpico, and K. Shimada,QCD-Electroweak First-Order Phase Transition in a Supercooled Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 14 141301, [1704.04955]

    2017 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Pagano, L

    L. Pagano, L. Salvati, and A. Melchiorri,New constraints on primordial gravitational waves from Planck 2015, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 823–825, [1508.02393]

    2016 arXiv

  91. [99]

    J. C. Helo, S. Kovalenko, and I. Schmidt,Sterile neutrinos in lepton number and lepton flavor violating decays, Nucl. Phys. B 853 (2011) 80–104, [1005.1607]

    2011 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Alwall, C

    J. Alwall, C. Duhr, B. Fuks, O. Mattelaer, D. G. Öztürk, and C.-H. Shen,Computing decay rates for new physics theories with FeynRules and MadGraph 5_aMC@NLO, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 312–323, [1402.1178]

    2015 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Gouttenoire,Primordial black holes from conformal Higgs, Phys

    Y. Gouttenoire,Primordial black holes from conformal Higgs, Phys. Lett. B 855 (2024) 138800, [2311.13640]. – 48 –

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    H. H. Patel,Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 218 (2017) 66–70, [1612.00009]. – 49 –

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.