RGE effects on new physics searches via gravitational waves

Daiki Ueda; Katsuya Hashino

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 84 references

RGE effects on new physics searches via gravitational waves

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future GW observatories can still measure new-physics Higgs operators despite renormalization-scale uncertainty—if colliders first pin down the $(H^\dagger H)^3$ operator.

desk verdict A solid, honest extension of the authors' earlier Fisher analysis: once the (H†H)^3 coefficient is fixed externally, GW sensitivities to subleading SMEFT operators survive the two scale choices tested, though the scale uncertainty is sampled, not yet marginalized. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13074 v4 pith:77J3CVHQ submitted 2025-05-19 hep-ph astro-ph.HEhep-exhep-th

Katsuya Hashino , Daiki Ueda This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.HEhep-exhep-th

keywords gravitationalwaveselectroweakphasetransitionSMEFTFishermatrixrenormalizationscaleuncertaintydaisyresummationHiggspotentialdimension-sixoperators

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

This paper asks whether gravitational-wave (GW) observations can still perform precision new-physics measurements once the recognized renormalization-scale ambiguity of the daisy-resummed effective potential is taken into account. Using SMEFT as a benchmark, the paper includes one-loop RGE running of dimension-six operators in the Higgs potential, computes GW spectra at the two scales $\mu_{\rm PT}=2\pi T_n$ and $T_n/2$, and runs a Fisher matrix forecast. It finds that while the absolute GW peak amplitude shifts with the renormalization scale, the relative sensitivities to subleading Wilson coefficients survive, provided the $(H^\dagger H)^3$ operator is fixed by other experiments. This restores the GW precision program, but only conditionally: the transition-driving operator must be known externally.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the full one-loop effective potential $V_{\rm full}=V+V_{\rm CW}+V_T+V_{\rm daisy}$, evaluated at two renormalization scales that differ by a factor of $4\pi$ ($\mu_{\rm PT}=T_n/2$ and $2\pi T_n$), with one-loop SMEFT RGE running of $m^2$, $\lambda$, the top Yukawa, the gauge couplings, and the Wilson coefficients from $\mu=M_Z$ to the transition scale. This scale variation quantifies the theoretical uncertainty. On top of it, the Fisher information matrix $F_{ab}=2T_{\rm obs}\int df\,\partial_{p_a}S_h\,\partial_{p_b}S_h/[S_{\rm eff}+S_h]^2$ converts derivatives of the GW power spectrum with respect to Wilson coefficients into 95% confidence contours, giving the projected measurement precision.

What would settle it

Measure the coefficient of $(H^\dagger H)^3$ at a future collider with the projected precision; if its uncertainty is comparable to or larger than the spread between the $\mu_{\rm PT}=2\pi T_n$ and $T_n/2$ Fisher contours, the claimed robustness fails. A cleaner test is to repeat the same Fisher forecast in a dimensionally reduced or lattice effective theory: if the renormalization-scale dependence of the peak amplitude is not reduced there, then externally fixing $(H^\dagger H)^3$ is not enough to make the GW precision measurements reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that future GW observations, such as DECIGO and BBO, can remain sensitive to a wide set of dimension-six SMEFT operators even when the renormalization-scale uncertainty of the daisy-resummed approach is explicitly included. The paper shows that the scale dependence makes it impossible to determine the Wilson coefficient $C_H$ of the $(H^\dagger H)^3$ operator from GW data alone; the peak amplitude varies by one to two orders of magnitude between $\mu_{\rm PT}=2\pi T_n$ and $T_n/2$. However, once $C_H$ is fixed by future collider measurements, the 95% confidence contours for the other operators stay narrow, with sensitivity to new physics scales above roughly 10 TeV, and this robustness holds for bubble wall velocities $v_b=0.2$, $0.5$, and $1$. The paper therefore concludes that precision new-physics searches via GW observations remain viable under renormalization-scale uncertainties, conditional on external determination of the phase-transition-driving operator.

Load-bearing premise

The whole forecast rests on the assumption that the dimension-six SMEFT, with the $(H^\dagger H)^3$ operator driving the transition, is a valid stand-in for real new physics; the paper itself cites studies showing this fails for many complete theories of new physics at high energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, GW observations alone cannot determine the coefficient of the $(H^\dagger H)^3$ operator; a collider measurement of that coefficient becomes a prerequisite for GW-based new-physics searches.
The precision for subleading dimension-six operators is largely preserved across the two renormalization scales and across bubble wall velocities from 0.2 to 1.
The projected sensitivities reach new physics scales above roughly 10 TeV for DECIGO and BBO with one year of observation.
The analysis suggests that a dimensionally reduced effective theory, applied to the same Fisher forecast, should shrink the renormalization-scale uncertainty substantially.
Varying the assumed central value of $C_H$ between the collider-reachable points (600 to 700 GeV for $\Lambda/\sqrt{|c_H|}$) does not erase the GW sensitivity to the other operators.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not say this, but its results imply a practical division of labor: colliders fix the strength of the transition, while GW detectors constrain the shape of the potential. If the collider uncertainty on $C_H$ is comparable to the spread between the two renormalization-scale contours, that division breaks down and the GW constraints degrade accordingly.
The cited limitations of the dimension-six SMEFT benchmark suggest that the sensitivities may not transfer to realistic ultraviolet completions; a direct extension would repeat the Fisher forecast for a singlet-extended model or with dimension-eight operators to test whether the robustness survives.
The two-scale comparison is a conservative envelope rather than a statistical error; one could combine the two contours into a single band, but that would still not capture systematic errors from the choice of phase-transition parameters such as the percolation temperature.
Because the forecasts rely on the acoustic GW peak, foreground subtraction of compact white dwarf binaries in the millihertz band is likely to set the practical floor for the achievable precision, which the paper includes but does not vary as a nuisance parameter.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper does exactly what it says: it adds one-loop SMEFT RGE running and renormalization-scale variation to the earlier Fisher-matrix analysis of Ref. [48], and finds that if the dominant (H†H)^3 operator (CH) is pinned down by colliders, the projected GW sensitivities to the other dimension-six operators remain roughly the same at μPT = 2πTn and Tn/2. Second, that conclusion is conditional and honestly labeled: the paper does not claim to measure CH from GWs, and it flags the known EFT-truncation problems for the SFO-EWPT by citing Refs. [24,65].

What is genuinely new: the one-loop RGE running of the SMEFT operators into the thermal potential, and the explicit check that the Fisher ellipses for each subleading operator are similar at the two scales. The computations look standard and mostly transparent; the long appendix tables of self-energies and RGE corrections are useful. The paper is careful with the central-value dependence of CH and varies vb too.

Soft spots, in order of seriousness. First, the renormalization scale is sampled at two endpoints, not marginalized or profiled in the Fisher likelihood. The two contours in Fig. 5 are separate forecasts conditional on μ; they are never combined into a single error budget. The abstract's 'in the presence of renormalization scale uncertainties' overstates things. The stress-test note has a point: if μ were treated as unknown in a joint fit, degeneracy with the overall amplitude could inflate some of the quoted intervals. That said, this does not sink the paper; the similar widths at the two scales are meaningful evidence against a drastic degradation, and because CH is fixed externally, the overall amplitude anchors μ. But the authors should add a caveat, or better, do a simple profile over μ. Second, the Fisher analysis is pairwise, one operator at a time; simultaneous fits could change the picture. The authors note this implicitly but don't address it. Third, no code or data release; reproducibility suffers a bit. Fourth, the EFT truncation issue is openly acknowledged and is a shared problem of the whole SMEFT-GW literature; it shouldn't count against this paper in itself.

The paper deserves a serious referee. It is a solid, incremental contribution to a specific open question raised in Ref. [47], and the negative result about scale-robustness—if it holds up—is useful for planning forecasts. Recommend sending to peer review, with the scale-marginalization issue as the main request for revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the question of whether gravitational-wave (GW) observations can perform precision measurements of SMEFT Wilson coefficients when the strong theoretical scale uncertainty of the conventional daisy-resummed effective potential is taken into account. Using the SMEFT with the (H^†H)^3 operator as the source of a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition, the authors compute the one-loop improved Higgs potential, include one-loop RGE running of dimension-six operators between M_Z and the phase-transition scale, and evaluate phase-transition parameters and GW spectra at the two renormalization scales μ_PT = 2πT_n and μ_PT = T_n/2. They then perform Fisher-matrix forecasts for LISA, DECIGO, and BBO, assuming that future colliders fix the central value of the (H^†H)^3 Wilson coefficient. Their central claim is that, under this collider precondition, future GW observations remain sensitive to many other dimension-six operators even in the presence of renormalization-scale uncertainties.

Significance. If the main claim is established, the paper resolves a genuine tension in the literature: Ref. [47] showed that daisy-resummed GW predictions have large scale dependence, while earlier Fisher studies [48,82] ignored that uncertainty. The paper makes a useful step toward a more honest forecast by combining one-loop SMEFT RGE running, one-loop matching, and a two-scale comparison in the statistical analysis. It is also commendably transparent about its assumptions, including the conditional reliance on a collider measurement of C_H, the variation of the bubble wall velocity, and the known limitations of the dimension-six SMEFT benchmark. However, as discussed below, the statistical treatment of the scale uncertainty is not yet a marginalization or profiling over μ, and the pairwise Fisher analysis leaves open multi-operator degeneracies; these need to be addressed before the abstract's claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)

[§3.3, Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12)] The Fisher likelihood in Eqs. (3.11)–(3.12) does not include the renormalization scale μ as a parameter. The analysis evaluates Sh(f, μ, {p}) at two fixed values μ_PT = 2πT_n and μ_PT = T_n/2 and compares the resulting contours, but never marginalizes or profiles over μ. Since Fig. 4 shows that the peak amplitude changes by orders of magnitude between these two scales, an unknown μ is a potentially large systematic direction in parameter space that can be partially absorbed by Wilson coefficients. The abstract's wording, 'even in the presence of renormalization scale uncertainties', is therefore stronger than what Figs. 5–8 demonstrate. I recommend adding a profile-likelihood or nuisance-marginalized Fisher analysis in which μ is varied (e.g., over the interval [T_n/2, 2πT_n]), and reporting whether the marginalized widths remain comparable to the fixed-μ widths.
[§3.3, Figs. 5–8] The Fisher forecasts are performed pairwise: only the GW source C_H and one other Wilson coefficient are taken as active, with all other operators set to zero. The real parameter space has many active operators simultaneously, and degeneracies among them (for example, between C_H□, C_HD, and operator effects entering through the top sector) could broaden the inferred intervals. Since the paper claims sensitivity to 'various' dimension-six operators, at least one multi-operator Fisher computation, or an explicit argument that the pairwise treatment is conservative, is needed to support the conclusion.
[§2.5 and Fig. 1] The scale uncertainty is sampled at only two endpoints, μ_PT = 2πT_n and T_n/2, rather than explored continuously. The phase-transition parameters and GW spectrum need not vary monotonically between these two points, and the two endpoints are also not accompanied by a clear criterion for why they bound the systematic error. A scan over μ_PT, or a statement of why the endpoints are representative, would make the robustness claim much stronger.

minor comments (6)

[Figs. 6–8] The first panel of each figure labels the operator 'CW', while Table 1 and the text consistently use 'OW' for the triple-gauge-boson operator. This should be corrected for consistency.
[§3.1, Eq. (3.6)] The notation H*R* and H(T_n)R* is used in the same equation without defining H* at that point; it should be stated that H* is the Hubble parameter at the nucleation (or percolation) temperature, and the two notations should be made consistent.
[§2.5 and Fig. 2] Fig. 2 plots v_c/T_c as a continuous function of μ_PT, while the rest of the paper evaluates only μ_PT = 2πT_n and T_n/2. A sentence clarifying that Fig. 2 is illustrative and not used in the Fisher analysis would be helpful.
[§3.3] The use of Λ/√|c_H| alongside C_H = c_H/Λ² is sometimes confusing because Λ/√|c_H| has mass dimension one while C_H has mass dimension −2. Defining both notations in one place near Eq. (2.11) would improve readability.
[General] No code or numerical inputs are released. Given that the paper's quantitative conclusions depend on the bounce solver, RGE running, and detector noise curves, making the analysis scripts available, or at least specifying all numerical input values and software versions, would aid reproducibility.
[§1 and §4] The paper correctly emphasizes that the dimension-six SMEFT benchmark is limited by the results of Refs. [24,65]. However, the abstract and conclusions should state more explicitly that the quoted sensitivities apply to this benchmark scenario, not to generic new-physics models, to avoid over-generalization by readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the GW Fisher forecasts are computed from a self-contained effective potential with externally fixed SMEFT inputs; the scale-uncertainty treatment is a methodological limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and not circular. The effective potential, Eq. (2.33), is constructed from the tree-level potential, one-loop Coleman-Weinberg potential, thermal potential, and daisy-resummed terms, with all SMEFT Wilson coefficients input at mu = MZ and evolved by one-loop RGE running to mu = mu_PT. The Fisher analysis, Eqs. (3.11)-(3.12), uses this potential only to compute GW spectra and their derivatives with respect to Wilson coefficients; no parameter is fitted to the GW data being forecast. The Wilson coefficient CH of the (H†H)^3 operator is explicitly treated as a fixed input determined by future colliders, not extracted from the GW signal, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction structure. The two renormalization scales mu_PT = 2pi Tn and Tn/2 are sampled as endpoints, and the comparison of contour widths is presented as the advertised robustness check; whether sampling two fixed scales fully captures the scale uncertainty is a statistical/methodological concern, not circularity. The self-citations to Refs. [47] and [48] provide prior computational methods and benchmark results, but they do not import an unverified uniqueness theorem or smuggle in the central claim by citation, and the present RGE running is performed in the paper rather than simply asserted from those references. The paper also candidly acknowledges the known limitation that dimension-six SMEFT truncation fails for a wide range of UV theories, which further shows the central claim is conditional on explicit assumptions rather than being forced by definition. Overall, the derivation chain is independent of its forecast targets, so no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard tools (SMEFT, daisy-resummed potential, Fisher matrix) plus three chosen parameters: the central value of the dominant Wilson coefficient, the bubble wall velocity, and the renormalization scale. No new particles or forces are introduced. The most fragile input is the validity of the SMEFT dimension-six truncation for the SFO-EWPT, which the authors themselves flag as questionable.

free parameters (3)

Central value of Λ/sqrt(|c_H|) (the (H†H)^3 Wilson coefficient) = 600, 620, 640, 660, 680, 700 GeV (varied)
Assumed to be measured by future colliders (Ref [71]); the paper varies this input to test the dependence of the forecasts. It is not derived within the paper.
Bubble wall velocity v_b = 0.2, 0.5, 1.0
Free parameter in the GW spectrum prediction, varied to assess theoretical uncertainty.
Renormalization scale μ_PT = T/2 and 2πT
Chosen following Ref [47] to represent the scale uncertainty; the variation between these endpoints is used as the uncertainty estimate.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The SMEFT truncated at dimension-six operators, with (H†H)^3 driving the SFO-EWPT, provides a valid benchmark for the phase transition analysis.
The paper cites Refs [24,65] showing this description has a limited valid parameter space, but uses it as a diagnostic benchmark. If the dim-6 truncation fails, the forecasts may not apply to realistic UV completions.
domain assumption The conventional daisy-resummed thermal effective potential is adequate for computing phase transition parameters, with renormalization scale dependence as the main uncertainty.
Standard in the literature; the paper explicitly adopts it from Ref [47] and acknowledges large scale dependence, but treats the two-scale variation as the uncertainty estimate.
domain assumption One-loop SMEFT RGE running from μ=MZ to μ_PT captures the relevant operator mixing.
Assumes the one-loop RGEs (Refs [13-15]) are sufficient and that higher-order terms are negligible.
domain assumption The GW spectrum is dominated by sound waves and is described by the fitting functions of Refs [66,81].
The paper uses only the compression wave contribution and the provided fitting formula; other sources (turbulence, collisions) are neglected.
standard math The Fisher matrix formalism with the stated noise curves and one-year observation provides a valid statistical forecast.
Standard Gaussian likelihood approximation used in the GW community.
domain assumption The nucleation temperature is determined by the condition Γ/H^4 = 1 with the bounce action computed by AnyBubble.
Standard nucleation criterion; depends on the bounce solution code's accuracy.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RGE effects on new physics searches via gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/77J3CVHQ

@misc{pith2026250513074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RGE effects on new physics searches via gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/77J3CVHQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13074}
}

abstract

Gravitational wave (GW) observations offer a promising probe of new physics associated with a first-order electroweak phase transition. Precision studies of the Higgs potential, including Fisher matrix analyses, have been extensively conducted in this context. However, significant theoretical uncertainties in the GW spectrum, particularly those due to renormalization scale dependence in the conventional daisy-resummed approach, have cast doubt on the reliability of such precision measurements. These uncertainties have been highlighted using the Standard Model Effective Field Theory (SMEFT) as a benchmark. To address these issues, we revisit Fisher matrix analyses based on the daisy-resummed approach, explicitly incorporating renormalization scale uncertainties. We then reassess the prospects for precise new physics measurements using GW observations. Adopting the SMEFT as a benchmark, we study the effects of one-loop RGE running of dimension-six operators on the Higgs effective potential via the Higgs self-couplings, top Yukawa coupling, and gauge couplings, in addition to the SMEFT tree-level effects. We find that future GW observations can remain sensitive to various dimension-six SMEFT effects, even in the presence of renormalization scale uncertainties, provided that the SMEFT $(H^{\dagger}H)^3$ operator is precisely measured, e.g., by future collider experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13074 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Contour plot of the ratio vc/Tc as a function of 1/ p |CH| = Λ/ p |cH| (with cH dimensionless and Λ of mass dimension one), and the renormalization scale µPT, which corresponds to the typical energy scale of the EWPT. We here consider a scenario where the SFO-EWPT occurs via OH and neglect the other operators for brevity. The other operator effects on the GW spectrum are numerically evaluated in subsection 3.3. Vful… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The nucleation temperature Tn (black) and the percolation temperature Tp (red) as functions of 1/ p |CH| = Λ/ p |cH|, where cH is a dimensionless parameter and Λ is a mass-dimensional parameter. For the solid and dashed curves, we choose different renormalization scales: µPT = 2πT for the solid curve and µPT = T/2 for the dashed curve. In this plot, all SMEFT operators except OH are set to zero to highlight the ren… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: The dependence of the renormalization scale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The 95% C.L. contours of DECIGO observation with 1-year statistics for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The projected sensitivity of the DECIGO (reddish bands) and BBO (bluish [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The same plots as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: The same plots as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[48]

SMEFT effects on the gravitational wave spectrum from an electroweak phase transition,

K. Hashino and D. Ueda, “SMEFT effects on the gravitational wave spectrum from an electroweak phase transition,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 095022 [arXiv:2210.11241]

arXiv 2023
[47]

Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,

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 [arXiv:2009.10080]

arXiv 2021
[1]

Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1–29 [arXiv:1207.7214]

arXiv 2012
[2]

Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61 [arXiv:1207.7235]

arXiv 2012
[3]

Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,

M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, “Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9 (1994) 795–810 [hep-ph/9312215]

arXiv 1994
[4]

Axial Currents from CKM Matrix CP Violation and Electroweak Baryogenesis

T. Konstandin, T. Prokopec, and M. G. Schmidt, “Axial currents from CKM ma- trix CP violation and electroweak baryogenesis,” Nucl. Phys. B 679 (2004) 246–260 [hep-ph/0309291]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[5]

On the Anomalous Elec- troweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,

V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On the Anomalous Elec- troweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,” Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985) 36

1985
[6]

The Electroweak phase transition: A Nonperturbative analysis,

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “The Electroweak phase transition: A Nonperturbative analysis,” Nucl. Phys. B 466 (1996) 189–258 [hep-lat/9510020]

arXiv 1996

Show all 84 references

[7]

Is there a hot electroweak phase transition at mH≳ mW ?

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Is there a hot electroweak phase transition at mH≳ mW ?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2887–2890 [hep-ph/9605288]

1996 arXiv
[8]

A Nonpertur- bative analysis of the finite T phase transition in SU(2) x U(1) electroweak theory,

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “A Nonpertur- bative analysis of the finite T phase transition in SU(2) x U(1) electroweak theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 493 (1997) 413–438 [hep-lat/9612006]

1997 arXiv
[9]

Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition,

F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, and J. Heitger, “Endpoint of the hot electroweak phase transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 21–24 [hep-ph/9809291]

1999 arXiv
[10]

Standard model cross-over on the lattice,

M. D’Onofrio and K. Rummukainen, “Standard model cross-over on the lattice,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 025003 [arXiv:1508.07161]

2016 arXiv
[11]

Review of particle physics,

Particle Data Group Collaboration, “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001

2024
[12]

Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,

B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, “Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian,” JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884]. 40

2010 arXiv
[13]

Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence,

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators I: Formalism and lambda Dependence,” JHEP 10 (2013) 087 [arXiv:1308.2627]

2013 arXiv
[14]

Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,

E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators II: Yukawa Dependence,” JHEP 01 (2014) 035 [arXiv:1310.4838]

2014 arXiv
[15]

Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling De- pendence and Phenomenology,

R. Alonso, E. E. Jenkins, A. V. Manohar, and M. Trott, “Renormalization Group Evolution of the Standard Model Dimension Six Operators III: Gauge Coupling De- pendence and Phenomenology,” JHEP 04 (2014) 159 [arXiv:1312.2014]

2014 arXiv
[16]

On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Elec- troweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal,

J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, and J. M. No, “On the Maximal Strength of a First-Order Elec- troweak Phase Transition and its Gravitational Wave Signal,” JCAP 04 (2019) 003 [arXiv:1809.08242]

2019 arXiv
[17]

First-order electroweak phase transi- tion in the standard model with a low cutoff,

C. Grojean, G. Servant, and J. D. Wells, “First-order electroweak phase transi- tion in the standard model with a low cutoff,” Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 036001 [hep-ph/0407019]

2005 arXiv
[18]

Operators analysis for Higgs potential and cosmological bound on Higgs mass,

X.-m. Zhang, “Operators analysis for Higgs potential and cosmological bound on Higgs mass,” Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 3065–3067 [hep-ph/9301277]

1993 arXiv
[19]

The Baryon asymmetry in the standard model with a low cut-off,

D. Bodeker, L. Fromme, S. J. Huber, and M. Seniuch, “The Baryon asymmetry in the standard model with a low cut-off,” JHEP 02 (2005) 026 [hep-ph/0412366]

2005 arXiv
[20]

Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves and eLISA/NGO: Phase Transitions, Cosmic Strings and Other Sources,

P. Binetruy, A. Bohe, C. Caprini, and J.-F. Dufaux, “Cosmological Backgrounds of Gravitational Waves and eLISA/NGO: Phase Transitions, Cosmic Strings and Other Sources,” JCAP 06 (2012) 027 [arXiv:1201.0983]

2012 arXiv
[21]

Dynamics of Non-renormalizable Elec- troweak Symmetry Breaking,

C. Delaunay, C. Grojean, and J. D. Wells, “Dynamics of Non-renormalizable Elec- troweak Symmetry Breaking,” JHEP 04 (2008) 029 [arXiv:0711.2511]

2008 arXiv
[22]

An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities

S. J. Huber and M. Sopena, “An efficient approach to electroweak bubble velocities.” arXiv:1302.1044

arXiv
[23]

From Boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities,

T. Konstandin, G. Nardini, and I. Rues, “From Boltzmann equations to steady wall velocities,” JCAP 09 (2014) 028 [arXiv:1407.3132]

2014 arXiv
[24]

Effective Field Theory and Electroweak Baryogenesis in the Singlet-Extended Standard Model,

P. H. Damgaard, A. Haarr, D. O’Connell, and A. Tranberg, “Effective Field Theory and Electroweak Baryogenesis in the Singlet-Extended Standard Model,” JHEP 02 (2016) 107 [arXiv:1512.01963]

2016 arXiv
[25]

Does zero temperature decide on the nature of the electroweak phase transition?

C. P. D. Harman and S. J. Huber, “Does zero temperature decide on the nature of the electroweak phase transition?” JHEP 06 (2016) 005 [arXiv:1512.05611]. 41

2016 arXiv
[26]

Effective field theory, electric dipole moments and electroweak baryogenesis,

C. Balazs, G. White, and J. Yue, “Effective field theory, electric dipole moments and electroweak baryogenesis,” JHEP 03 (2017) 030 [arXiv:1612.01270]

2017 arXiv
[27]

Electroweak Baryo- genesis and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,

J. de Vries, M. Postma, J. van de Vis, and G. White, “Electroweak Baryo- genesis and the Standard Model Effective Field Theory,” JHEP 01 (2018) 089 [arXiv:1710.04061]

2018 arXiv
[28]

The gravitational waves from the first- order phase transition with a dimension-six operator,

R.-G. Cai, M. Sasaki, and S.-J. Wang, “The gravitational waves from the first- order phase transition with a dimension-six operator,” JCAP 08 (2017) 004 [arXiv:1707.03001]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Signals of the electroweak phase tran- sition at colliders and gravitational wave observatories,

M. Chala, C. Krause, and G. Nardini, “Signals of the electroweak phase tran- sition at colliders and gravitational wave observatories,” JHEP 07 (2018) 062 [arXiv:1802.02168]

2018 arXiv
[30]

Bubble wall velocities in the Standard Model and beyond,

G. C. Dorsch, S. J. Huber, and T. Konstandin, “Bubble wall velocities in the Standard Model and beyond,” JCAP 12 (2018) 034 [arXiv:1809.04907]

2018 arXiv
[31]

The role of leptons in electroweak baryo- genesis,

J. De Vries, M. Postma, and J. van de Vis, “The role of leptons in electroweak baryo- genesis,” JHEP 04 (2019) 024 [arXiv:1811.11104]

2019 arXiv
[32]

Mapping the shape of the scalar potential with gravitational waves,

M. Chala, V. V. Khoze, M. Spannowsky, and P. Waite, “Mapping the shape of the scalar potential with gravitational waves,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34 (2019) 1950223 [arXiv:1905.00911]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Electroweak Baryogenesis from Temperature- Varying Couplings,

S. A. R. Ellis, S. Ipek, and G. White, “Electroweak Baryogenesis from Temperature- Varying Couplings,” JHEP 08 (2019) 002 [arXiv:1905.11994]

2019 arXiv
[34]

Connecting the electroweak sphaleron with gravi- tational waves,

R. Zhou, L. Bian, and H.-K. Guo, “Connecting the electroweak sphaleron with gravi- tational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 091903 [arXiv:1910.00234]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Higgs boson coupling as a probe of the sphaleron property,

S. Kanemura and M. Tanaka, “Higgs boson coupling as a probe of the sphaleron property,” Phys. Lett. B 809 (2020) 135711 [arXiv:2005.05250]

2020 arXiv
[36]

Sphaleron in the first-order electroweak phase transition with the dimension-six Higgs field operator,

V. Q. Phong, P. H. Khiem, N. P. D. Loc, and H. N. Long, “Sphaleron in the first-order electroweak phase transition with the dimension-six Higgs field operator,” Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 116010 [arXiv:2003.09625]

2020 arXiv
[37]

Bubble wall velocity beyond leading-log ap- proximation in electroweak phase transition

X. Wang, F. P. Huang, and X. Zhang, “Bubble wall velocity beyond leading-log ap- proximation in electroweak phase transition.” arXiv:2011.12903

2011 arXiv
[38]

Phase transition dynamics and gravitational wave spectra of strong first-order phase transition in supercooled universe,

X. Wang, F. P. Huang, and X. Zhang, “Phase transition dynamics and gravitational wave spectra of strong first-order phase transition in supercooled universe,” JCAP 05 (2020) 045 [arXiv:2003.08892]. 42

2020 arXiv
[39]

A new Higgs effective field theory and the new no-lose theorem,

S. Kanemura and R. Nagai, “A new Higgs effective field theory and the new no-lose theorem,” JHEP 03 (2022) 194 [arXiv:2111.12585]

2022 arXiv
[40]

Electroweak bubble wall expansion: grav- itational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma,

M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, and M. Zych, “Electroweak bubble wall expansion: grav- itational waves and baryogenesis in Standard Model-like thermal plasma,” JHEP 02 (2022) 017 [arXiv:2111.02393]

2022 arXiv
[41]

Primordial black holes as a probe of strongly first-order electroweak phase transition,

K. Hashino, S. Kanemura, and T. Takahashi, “Primordial black holes as a probe of strongly first-order electroweak phase transition,” Phys. Lett. B 833 (2022) 137261 [arXiv:2111.13099]

2022 arXiv
[42]

Electroweak phase transition in the nearly aligned Higgs effective field theory,

S. Kanemura, R. Nagai, and M. Tanaka, “Electroweak phase transition in the nearly aligned Higgs effective field theory,” JHEP 06 (2022) 027 [arXiv:2202.12774]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Two Higgs doublets, effective interactions and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition,

Anisha, L. Biermann, C. Englert, and M. M¨ uhlleitner, “Two Higgs doublets, effective interactions and a strong first-order electroweak phase transition,” JHEP 08 (2022) 091 [arXiv:2204.06966]

2022 arXiv
[44]

Testing the electroweak phase transition and electroweak baryogenesis at the LHC and a circular electron- positron collider,

F. P. Huang, P.-H. Gu, P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu, and X. Zhang, “Testing the electroweak phase transition and electroweak baryogenesis at the LHC and a circular electron- positron collider,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 103515 [arXiv:1511.03969]

2016 arXiv
[45]

Testing the electroweak phase transition in scalar extension models at lepton colliders,

Q.-H. Cao, F. P. Huang, K.-P. Xie, and X. Zhang, “Testing the electroweak phase transition in scalar extension models at lepton colliders,” Chin. Phys. C 42 (2018) 023103 [arXiv:1708.04737]

2018 arXiv
[46]

Hearing the echoes of electroweak baryogenesis with gravitational wave detectors,

F. P. Huang, Y. Wan, D.-G. Wang, Y.-F. Cai, and X. Zhang, “Hearing the echoes of electroweak baryogenesis with gravitational wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 041702 [arXiv:1601.01640]

2016 arXiv
[49]

Feasibility of ultrarel- ativistic bubbles in SMEFT,

U. Banerjee, S. Chakraborty, S. Prakash, and S. U. Rahaman, “Feasibility of ultrarel- ativistic bubbles in SMEFT,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 055002 [arXiv:2402.02914]

2024 arXiv
[50]

Search for Stochastic GW Signal as a Complementary Approach to Multi-Higgs Productions at the Hadron Colliders to Probe Dimension Six Operator

D. Gazi, A. Mukherjee, S. Niyogi, and S. Poddar, “Search for Stochastic GW Signal as a Complementary Approach to Multi-Higgs Productions at the Hadron Colliders to Probe Dimension Six Operator.” arXiv:2408.13326. 43

arXiv
[51]

A Catalog of First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory

E. Camargo-Molina, R. Enberg, and J. L¨ ofgren, “A Catalog of First-Order Electroweak Phase Transitions in the Standard Model Effective Field Theory.”arXiv:2410.23210
[52]

Higher-dimensional opera- tors at finite-temperature affect gravitational-wave predictions

F. Bernardo, P. Klose, P. Schicho, and T. V. I. Tenkanen, “Higher-dimensional opera- tors at finite-temperature affect gravitational-wave predictions.” arXiv:2503.18904

arXiv
[53]

The High-Temperature Limit of the SM(EFT)

M. Chala and G. Guedes, “The High-Temperature Limit of the SM(EFT).” arXiv:2503.20016

arXiv
[54]

Theoretical Uncertainties in First-Order Elec- troweak Phase Transitions

Y. Zhu, J. Liu, R. Qin, and L. Bian, “Theoretical Uncertainties in First-Order Elec- troweak Phase Transitions.” arXiv:2503.19566

arXiv
[55]

Electric dipole moment constraints on minimal electroweak baryogenesis,

S. J. Huber, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, “Electric dipole moment constraints on minimal electroweak baryogenesis,” Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 036006 [hep-ph/0610003]

2007 arXiv
[56]

Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,

A. Dainese et al., eds., “Report from Working Group 2: Higgs Physics at the HL-LHC and HE-LHC,” CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 7 (2019) 221–584 [arXiv:1902.00134]

2019 arXiv
[57]

Tests of the Standard Model at the International Linear Collider

LCC Physics Working Group Collaboration, “Tests of the Standard Model at the International Linear Collider.” arXiv:1908.11299

1908 arXiv
[58]

The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021

ILC International Development Team Collaboration, “The International Linear Collider: Report to Snowmass 2021.” arXiv:2203.07622

2021
[59]

The CLIC Potential for New Physics

CLIC Collaboration, “The CLIC Potential for New Physics.” arXiv:1812.02093

arXiv
[60]

FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Concep- tual Design Report Volume 1,

FCC Collaboration, “FCC Physics Opportunities: Future Circular Collider Concep- tual Design Report Volume 1,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 474

2019
[61]

Precision Higgs physics at the CEPC,

F. An et al., “Precision Higgs physics at the CEPC,” Chin. Phys. C 43 (2019) 043002 [arXiv:1810.09037]

2019 arXiv
[62]

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

LISA Collaboration, “Laser Interferometer Space Antenna.” arXiv:1702.00786

arXiv
[63]

Correlation analysis of stochastic gravitational wave background around 0.1-1 Hz,

N. Seto, “Correlation analysis of stochastic gravitational wave background around 0.1-1 Hz,” Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 063001 [gr-qc/0510067]

2006 arXiv
[64]

E. S. P. et al. , The big bang observer: Direct detection of gravitational waves from the birth of the universe to the present,” NASA Mission Concept Study (2004) (un- published)

2004
[65]

Cosmological phase transitions: is effective field theory just a toy?

M. Postma and G. White, “Cosmological phase transitions: is effective field theory just a toy?” JHEP 03 (2021) 280 [arXiv:2012.03953]

2021 arXiv
[66]

Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,

C. Caprini et al ., “Detecting gravitational waves from cosmological phase transitions with LISA: an update,” JCAP 03 (2020) 024 [arXiv:1910.13125]. 44

2020 arXiv
[67]

How arbitrary are pertur- bative calculations of the electroweak phase transition?

P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, et al ., “How arbitrary are pertur- bative calculations of the electroweak phase transition?” JHEP 01 (2023) 050 [arXiv:2208.01319]

2023 arXiv
[68]

How robust are gravitational wave predictions from cosmological phase transitions?

P. Athron, L. Morris, and Z. Xu, “How robust are gravitational wave predictions from cosmological phase transitions?” JCAP 05 (2024) 075 [arXiv:2309.05474]

2024 arXiv
[69]

Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase tran- sitions,

P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, and L. Morris, “Supercool subtleties of cosmological phase tran- sitions,” JCAP 03 (2023) 006 [arXiv:2212.07559]

2023
[70]

On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,

J. De Blas, G. Durieux, C. Grojean, J. Gu, and A. Paul, “On the future of Higgs, electroweak and diboson measurements at lepton colliders,” JHEP 12 (2019) 117 [arXiv:1907.04311]

2019 arXiv
[71]

Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,

J. de Blas et al., “Higgs Boson Studies at Future Particle Colliders,” JHEP 01 (2020) 139 [arXiv:1905.03764]

2020
[72]

Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model,

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “Generic rules for high temperature dimensional reduction and their application to the standard model,” Nucl. Phys. B 458 (1996) 90–136 [hep-ph/9508379]

1996 arXiv
[73]

Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Sponta- neous Symmetry Breaking,

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

1973
[74]

Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature,

L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, “Symmetry Behavior at Finite Temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 3320–3341

1974
[75]

Resummation in a hot scalar field theory,

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
[76]

The Effective potential and first order phase tran- sitions: Beyond leading-order,

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

1993 arXiv
[77]

First-order electroweak phase transitions: A nonperturbative update,

O. Gould, S. G¨ uyer, and K. Rummukainen, “First-order electroweak phase transitions: A nonperturbative update,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 114507 [arXiv:2205.07238]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 119903 (2024)]

2022 arXiv
[78]

Energy Budget of Cosmo- logical First-order Phase Transitions,

J. R. Espinosa, T. Konstandin, J. M. No, and G. Servant, “Energy Budget of Cosmo- logical First-order Phase Transitions,” JCAP 06 (2010) 028 [arXiv:1004.4187]

2010 arXiv
[79]

Cosmological phase transi- tions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves,

P. Athron, C. Bal´ azs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, and L. Wu, “Cosmological phase transi- tions: From perturbative particle physics to gravitational waves,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 135 (2024) 104094 [arXiv:2305.02357]. 45

2024 arXiv
[80]

Efficient numerical solution to vacuum decay with many fields,

A. Masoumi, K. D. Olum, and B. Shlaer, “Efficient numerical solution to vacuum decay with many fields,” JCAP 01 (2017) 051 [arXiv:1610.06594]

2017 arXiv
[81]

Shape of the acoustic gravitational wave power spectrum from a first order phase transition,

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) 103520 [arXiv:1704.05871]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 089902 (2020)]

2017 arXiv
[82]

Selecting models of first- order phase transitions using the synergy between collider and gravitational-wave ex- periments,

K. Hashino, R. Jinno, M. Kakizaki, S. Kanemura, et al ., “Selecting models of first- order phase transitions using the synergy between collider and gravitational-wave ex- periments,” Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 075011 [arXiv:1809.04994]

2019 arXiv
[83]

Detector configuration of DECIGO/BBO and identifi- cation of cosmological neutron-star binaries,

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

2011 arXiv
[84]

Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA: Supermassive black hole binaries,

A. Klein et al ., “Science with the space-based interferometer eLISA: Supermassive black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) 024003 [arXiv:1511.05581]. 46

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [48]

SMEFT effects on the gravitational wave spectrum from an electroweak phase transition,

K. Hashino and D. Ueda, “SMEFT effects on the gravitational wave spectrum from an electroweak phase transition,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 095022 [arXiv:2210.11241]

arXiv 2023

[2] [47]

Theoretical uncertainties for cosmological first-order phase transitions,

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 [arXiv:2009.10080]

arXiv 2021

[3] [1]

Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1–29 [arXiv:1207.7214]

arXiv 2012

[4] [2]

Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,

CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a New Boson at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at the LHC,” Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30–61 [arXiv:1207.7235]

arXiv 2012

[5] [3]

Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,

M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloff, and O. Pene, “Standard model CP violation and baryon asymmetry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9 (1994) 795–810 [hep-ph/9312215]

arXiv 1994

[6] [4]

Axial Currents from CKM Matrix CP Violation and Electroweak Baryogenesis

T. Konstandin, T. Prokopec, and M. G. Schmidt, “Axial currents from CKM ma- trix CP violation and electroweak baryogenesis,” Nucl. Phys. B 679 (2004) 246–260 [hep-ph/0309291]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[7] [5]

On the Anomalous Elec- troweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,

V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “On the Anomalous Elec- troweak Baryon Number Nonconservation in the Early Universe,” Phys. Lett. B 155 (1985) 36

1985

[8] [6]

The Electroweak phase transition: A Nonperturbative analysis,

K. Kajantie, M. Laine, K. Rummukainen, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, “The Electroweak phase transition: A Nonperturbative analysis,” Nucl. Phys. B 466 (1996) 189–258 [hep-lat/9510020]

arXiv 1996