Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

The Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium and Energy Budget with Full Effective Potential

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The full effective potential, not the bag model, should set the bubble wall velocity and kinetic energy fraction: in the xSM this shifts gravitational wave predictions by up to 48% in peak frequency and 90% in amplitude.

desk verdict Useful LTE pipeline paper with a credible quantitative claim that bag-model deflagration GW forecasts can be off by up to 48%/90%, but the untested fixed-VEV approximation in the wall matching needs to be quantified before those numbers are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19584 v2 pith:AR3P5NKL submitted 2025-05-26 hep-ph

Zongguo Si , Hongxin Wang , Lei Wang , Yang Xiao , Yang Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords bubblewallvelocitylocalthermalequilibriumfirst-orderphasetransitiongravitationalwaveseffectivepotentialkineticenergyfractionbagmodelsingletextensionofSM
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 establishes a framework for computing the bubble wall velocity and the kinetic energy fraction $K$ of a cosmological first-order phase transition directly from the full one-loop finite-temperature effective potential, using the local thermal equilibrium (LTE) approximation instead of treating the wall velocity as a free input. Applied to the singlet-extended Standard Model (xSM), the framework finds that deflagration is the most common fluid-motion mode. It then shows that gravitational wave spectra computed this way can differ from the commonly used bag-model-with-fitting-formula approach by up to 48% in peak frequency and 90% in peak amplitude in the deflagration regime, while the detonation regime shows much smaller differences. This matters because current forecasts for space-based gravitational wave detectors rely on exactly those approximate inputs, and the numbers quantify how much the forecasts can be trusted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the LTE closure $\gamma T = \text{const}$ (equivalently, entropy conservation across the wall, $s\gamma v = \text{const}$), added as a third matching condition to the two standard energy-momentum flux conditions across the bubble wall; this removes one free input variable, so the wall velocity is solved for rather than guessed. The full effective potential supplies the equation of state through the thermodynamic relations for $p$, $\rho$, and $w$, and a shooting method through the shock front fixes the position of the shock and the temperature profile. The framework is built on the xSM effective potential with one-loop Coleman-Weinberg, finite-temperature, and daisy-resummed corrections, and it discards detonation solutions with $\xi_w > 0.99$ as unphysical.

What would settle it

Recompute the deflagration benchmark points with temperature-dependent field values inserted directly into the three wall-matching conditions; if the resulting wall velocities and kinetic-energy fractions move enough to erase the claimed 48%/90% differences from the bag model, the central comparison rests on the fixed-VEV approximation rather than on the full potential itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the three wall-matching conditions—energy-flux conservation, momentum-flux conservation, and the LTE condition $\gamma T = \text{const}$ from entropy conservation—together with thermodynamic quantities derived from the full effective potential (pressure $p=-V_{\rm eff}$, energy density $\rho = V_{\rm eff}-T\,\partial V_{\rm eff}/\partial T$, enthalpy $w=-T\,\partial V_{\rm eff}/\partial T$) determine the bubble wall velocity and the complete fluid profile without any ad hoc velocity input. Within the scanned xSM parameter space the authors find that deflagration is the prevalent steady-state mode, that the bag model approximates the full equation of state well for these benchmark points because the squared speed of sound stays close to $1/3$ in both phases, and that replacing the bag-model efficiency fits with integrated $K$ and LTE-derived wall velocities shifts gravitational wave peak predictions substantially in the deflagration regime (up to 48% in frequency and 90% in amplitude) but only mildly in detonation (6% and 18%). A notable secondary finding is that when the wall velocity is supplied as an external input in deflagration, the bag-model spectra resemble the LTE-based spectra more closely than the full-potential spectra with that same input velocity.

Load-bearing premise

The matching conditions assume the vacuum field values in the two phases stay fixed at their reference-temperature values even though the effective potential and speed of sound used elsewhere are temperature-dependent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the scanned xSM parameter space, the bag model is a reliable stand-in for the full equation of state for the fluid profiles, since the speed of sound in both phases is close to $1/3$.
  • The fitted efficiency formulas overestimate the kinetic energy fraction in deflagration (average peak-amplitude deviation about 14.3%) but agree with direct integration in detonation (about 2.9%).
  • The choice of wall velocity dominates the uncertainty in the predicted gravitational wave spectra: fixing it to a representative value (0.3 for deflagration, 0.9 for detonation) instead of using the LTE result produces deviations that track variations in $K$.
  • Detonation solutions are unphysical when the LTE wall velocity approaches the speed of light ($\xi_w > 0.99$); such parameter points are excluded, and LTE is only valid for small transition strengths $\alpha_N$.
  • In deflagration scenarios where the wall velocity is treated as an input parameter, mapping the model to the bag model gives spectra closer to the LTE-based calculation than using the full potential with the same input velocity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 48% and 90% discrepancies generalize beyond xSM, gravitational wave forecasts from the bag model carry a systematic error larger than the usual detector-sensitivity uncertainties, so a full-potential LTE computation should become the default for any model claiming a detectable signal.
  • The framework's fixed-VEV approximation can be tested directly: recomputing benchmark points with temperature-dependent field values in the matching conditions will show whether the quoted discrepancies survive; if they do not, the bag-model comparison needs to be redone.
  • The same machinery, applied to models with particles whose masses sit near the transition temperature (where the speed of sound deviates from $1/3$), should produce larger bag-model deviations than the xSM scan, giving a targeted prediction for where approximate forecasts most need revision.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a hydrodynamic framework in which the bubble wall velocity is computed from the full one-loop finite-temperature effective potential under the local thermal equilibrium (LTE) approximation, and the kinetic energy fraction K is obtained by direct integration of the fluid profile. The framework is validated against the bag model on an artificial benchmark and against WallGo on one xSM parameter point. The authors then scan the xSM parameter space, classify the allowed hydrodynamic modes, and compare gravitational wave spectra obtained with different equations of state, different methods for computing K, and different choices of wall velocity. Their main quantitative findings are that deflagration is the most prevalent mode in the scanned region and that, in the deflagration regime, spectra from the full effective potential with LTE-derived wall velocity and integrated K differ from bag-model spectra with fitted K by up to 48% in peak frequency and 90% in peak amplitude.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a useful step toward reducing the systematic uncertainty in gravitational wave forecasts from cosmological phase transitions: it replaces input wall velocities with an LTE-derived value and computes K from the actual fluid profile rather than from bag-model fitting formulas. The WallGo cross-check at one benchmark agrees to about 1.2%, and the internal bag-model consistency test in Fig. 1 supports the numerical implementation. The main value of the paper is therefore not a new principle but a concrete, model-specific quantification of how much the predicted spectra depend on the treatment of the equation of state, K, and wall velocity. However, the load-bearing fixed-VEV approximation and the arbitrary runaway cutoff need to be tested before the reported 48% and 90% numbers can be regarded as robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (3.1)–(3.4)] The fixed-VEV approximation is load-bearing and is not quantified. The matching conditions evaluate p± and ρ± at VEVs frozen at a reference temperature, with the sole justification that 'the VEV typically exhibits weak temperature dependence.' Meanwhile, in Appendix 6.1 the speed of sound is computed using valAt(T), i.e., with temperature-dependent VEVs, so the matching conditions and the subsequent profile integration effectively use two different equations of state. In the xSM the false vacuum has a nonzero singlet VEV that can vary with temperature, and in a deflagration T+ differs from Tn because of shock heating. A VEV shift changes the pressure difference across the wall and therefore directly shifts the solved ξw and K, on which the headline 48%/90% discrepancies rest. Please provide a numerical test, for example by evaluating the matching conditions at Tn, T−, and T+ or by showing that the VEV variation is negligible across the scanned range.
  2. [§4, Fig. 2 and text after Eq. (3.8)] The exclusion of solutions with ξw > 0.99 as 'nonphysical' is arbitrary. The paper discards all runaway detonation candidates with this cutoff, and the scan statistics that lead to the conclusion that deflagration is the most prevalent mode are computed after this cut. No sensitivity to the cutoff value is given, and the only justification is a qualitative reference to Ref. [26]. Please show how the mode classification and the reported mean discrepancies change when the cutoff is varied (e.g., 0.95, 0.99, 0.999) or provide a physical criterion that fixes the cutoff.
  3. [§4, WallGo cross-check paragraph] The WallGo validation uses a benchmark with ms = 120 GeV, λhs = 0.9, λs = 1.0, which lies outside the scan range ms ≥ 150 GeV stated in Eq. (4.5), and the reconstructed potential uses a different renormalization scheme and omits daisy resummation. The 1.22% agreement is encouraging for the numerical machinery, but it does not validate the fixed-VEV approximation in the region where the central discrepancies are claimed. Please state this limitation explicitly or add a validation point inside the scanned region.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4 and Fig. 4 caption] The abbreviation 'LET' is used in several places (e.g., 'the LET result' and 'LET approach') and should be 'LTE' for consistency with the rest of the text.
  2. [§2.1, after Eq. (2.4)] 'Lorenz factor' should be 'Lorentz factor'.
  3. [Table 1] The table header contains a formatting artifact 'T able 1', and the bold variables that are meant to indicate specified quantities are not visible in the rendered text; please ensure the formatting conveys the intended information.
  4. [Fig. 2 and Eq. (4.5)] The scan range in the text states 150 GeV ≤ ms ≤ 500 GeV, but both panels of Fig. 2 show ms only up to about 325 GeV. Please clarify whether the axes are truncated or whether no solutions were found above that mass.
  5. [§3, Eq. (3.9)] The parameters Ms, δ, and λ in the artificial bag-model benchmark are dimensionful but no units are given; specifying Ms in GeV and δ in GeV would avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Abstract and code appendix] The abstract contains a stray '/github' token, and Appendix 6.1 shows code snippets but no repository URL. If the framework is intended to be publicly available, please provide a working link.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LTE wall velocity and integrated K are solved from stated conservation equations rather than fitted to the GW claims, and the one author-overlapping citation [56] supplies a standard, independently cross-checked effective-potential scheme.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Bubble wall velocities are not fitted to the gravitational-wave outputs: they are obtained by solving the wall matching conditions (3.2)-(3.4), which combine the flux-conservation conditions (2.23a,b) with the LTE closure gamma*T = const (Eq. 2.15, derived in-text from entropy conservation under the stated LTE assumption of Ref. [26]), with the VEVs fixed at a reference temperature. The kinetic-energy fraction is integrated directly from the solved fluid profiles (Eq. 4.13); the 'fitted K' used for the comparison is explicitly imported from the external fitting formulas (4.15)-(4.17) of Ref. [51] and is labeled as such, so it is not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The Fig. 1 bag-model validation is an algebraic reduction (Eq. 3.1 is the unsimplified form of the bag matching conditions) and a numerical consistency check rather than a source of the paper's central claims. The only self-citation with author overlap is [56] (Y. Zhang), from which the xSM one-loop effective-potential scheme (OS-like scheme, Landau gauge, Parwani resummation, Goldstone neglected) is adopted; its assumptions are stated, it does not encode the target results, the framework agrees with WallGo [32] to about 1%, and it is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem, so it is a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation. Two flagged caveats are correctness/robustness concerns rather than circularity: the fixed-VEV approximation in Sec. 3 is asserted without a sensitivity test and is internally inconsistent with the temperature-dependent VEVs used in cs_squ (Appendix 6.1, valAt(T)); and the WallGo cross-check benchmark (ms = 120 GeV) lies outside the scanned range (ms >= 150 GeV). Neither exhibits the specific 'prediction = input by construction' reduction required for a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The framework rests on standard finite-temperature effective potential technology and the LTE closure. The only hand-set quantities are scan boundaries, a reference temperature, and a runaway cutoff; none are fitted to the desired gravitational wave outputs.

free parameters (3)
  • runaway exclusion cutoff xi_cut = 0.99
    Detonation solutions with xi_w > 0.99 are discarded as nonphysical following Ref. [26]. This hand-chosen cutoff shapes the reported prevalence of deflagration and the detonation statistics.
  • xSM scan ranges and fixed lambda_s = ms in [150,500] GeV; lambda_hs in [0,3]; lambda_s = 0.2
    These chosen ranges determine which parameter points enter the scan; outside this region the mode prevalence and discrepancy percentages may differ.
  • reference temperature T_ref = Tn (nucleation temperature), user-selectable
    The fluid profile and wall velocity are computed at a reference temperature supplied by the user; the code allows T_ref to be nucleation or percolation temperature, so results depend on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Energy-momentum conservation and perfect-fluid form of the plasma
    Eqs. (2.1)-(2.3): the derivation of fluid profiles starts from assuming the plasma is a perfect fluid with T^mu nu = (rho+p) u^mu u^nu - p g^mu nu.
  • domain assumption Local thermal equilibrium with conserved entropy current, gamma T = const across the wall
    Eqs. (2.13)-(2.15): the third matching condition is the entropy-conservation condition partial_mu(s u^mu)=0, which is only valid under LTE. This is the central simplifying assumption of the method and is known to give an upper bound on the wall velocity.
  • domain assumption Self-similar solution ansatz, all quantities depend only on xi = r/t
    Stated above Eq. (2.4a): the hydrodynamic equations are solved under the assumption that the solution is self-similar.
  • ad hoc to paper VEVs in each phase are fixed to their values at a reference temperature when evaluating matching conditions
    Sec. 3: 'Since the VEV typically exhibits weak temperature dependence, it is a reasonable approximation to neglect this variation and fix the VEVs...' This is an added modeling assumption needed to close the system with the full effective potential.
  • domain assumption The one-loop effective potential with Parwani daisy resummation and neglected Goldstone contributions is a sufficient description
    Sec. 4: the xSM potential uses VCW with Goldstones neglected and thermal masses from daisy resummation; this is standard but scheme-dependent and can affect alpha_N and the spectra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium and Energy Budget with Full Effective Potential." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AR3P5NKL

@misc{pith2026250519584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium and Energy Budget with Full Effective Potential},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AR3P5NKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19584}
}
abstract

We develop a framework based on the full one-loop finite-temperature effective potential model, within which the bubble wall velocity is calculated using the local thermal equilibrium (LTE) approximation, and the kinetic energy fraction $K$ is computed directly. In cosmological phase transitions, these quantities play a critical role in determining the resulting gravitational wave signals. Using the xSM as a benchmark model, we compute the peak gravitational wave spectra under different methods for determining the wall velocity and the kinetic energy fraction $K$, and compare these results to those obtained using the commonly employed bag model. Within the scanned parameter space, we find: (1) Deflagration is the most prevalent mode of fluid motion.(2) Gravitational wave spectra based on the full effective potential with LTE-derived wall velocity and integrated $K$ can differ significantly from those using the bag model with fitted $K$. In the deflagration regime, discrepancies reach up to 48\% in peak frequency and 90\% in amplitude.(3) The bag model provides a good approximation to the full equation of state in many cases. Notably, in deflagration scenarios with input wall velocity, the gravitational wave spectra obtained from the bag model more closely resemble the LTE-based results than those derived using the full potential with this input wall velocity.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Entropy production at electroweak bubble walls from scalar field fluctuations

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Scalar fluctuations produce a nonvanishing entropy discontinuity across an electroweak bubble wall even in the zero-friction limit, showing LTE-based wall velocity upper bounds cannot be saturated.

  2. Electroweak Baryogenesis: Advances in Sphaleron Rate Calculations and Implications of Thermal Phase Transitions

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sphaleron rates can be computed gauge-invariantly in 3D thermal EFT, yielding a new baryon-washout criterion x = lambda3/g3^2 that replaces v_c/T_c > 1 for electroweak baryogenesis.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [26]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Garbrecht and C. Tamarit,Bubble wall velocities in local equilibrium, JCAP 03 (2022) 015, [2109.13710]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan and A. E. Nelson,Progress in electroweak baryogenesis, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.43 (1993) 27–70, [hep-ph/9302210]

    arXiv 1993

  3. [2]

    D. E. Morrissey and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf,Electroweak baryogenesis, New J. Phys.14 (2012) 125003, [1206.2942]

    arXiv 2012

  4. [3]

    Trodden,Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev

    M. Trodden,Electroweak baryogenesis, Rev. Mod. Phys.71 (1999) 1463–1500, [hep-ph/9803479]

    arXiv 1999

  5. [4]

    G. W. Anderson and L. J. Hall,The Electroweak phase transition and baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2685–2698

    work page 1992

  6. [5]

    A. D. Sakharov,Violation of cp-invariance, c-asymmetry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, inIn The Intermissions... Collected Works on Research into the Essentials of Theoretical Physics in Russian Federal Nuclear Center, Arzamas-16, pp. 84–87. World Scientific, 1998

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    M. J. Baker and L. Mittnacht,Variations on the Vev Flip-Flop: Instantaneous Freeze-out and Decaying Dark Matter, JHEP 05 (2019) 070, [1811.03101]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    M. J. Baker, J. Kopp and A. J. Long,Filtered Dark Matter at a First Order Phase Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 151102, [1912.02830]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    S. Y. Ayazi and M. Hosseini,Beyond Freeze-Out: A Novel Freeze-in Mechanism for Dark Matter via Supercooled Phase Transitions, 2502.14526

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang and C. S. Li,Hydrodynamic effects on the filtered dark matter produced by a first-order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 063508, [2305.02218]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Y. Xiao, J. M. Yang and Y. Zhang,Dilution of dark matter relic density in singlet extension models, JHEP 02 (2023) 008, [2207.14519]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, C. L. Wainwright and P. Winslow,Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies, Phys. Rev. D91 (2015) 035018, [1407.5342]

    2015 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Contino et al.,Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Higgs and EW symmetry breaking studies, 1606.09408

    R. Contino et al.,Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: Higgs and EW symmetry breaking studies, 1606.09408

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    A. V. Kotwal, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, J. M. No and P. Winslow,Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions in the 100 TeV frontier, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 035022, [1605.06123]

    2016 arXiv

  7. [14]

    J. M. No and M. Ramsey-Musolf,Probing the Higgs Portal at the LHC Through Resonant di-Higgs Production, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 095031, [1310.6035]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Profumo, M

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and G. Shaughnessy,Singlet Higgs phenomenology and the electroweak phase transition, JHEP 08 (2007) 010, [0705.2425]. – 26 –

    2007 arXiv

  9. [16]

    N. F. Bell, M. J. Dolan, L. S. Friedrich, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and R. R. Volkas,A Real Triplet-Singlet Extended Standard Model: Dark Matter and Collider Phenomenology, JHEP 21 (2020) 098, [2010.13376]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Zhang, H.-L

    W. Zhang, H.-L. Li, K. Liu, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Y. Zeng and S. Arunasalam,Probing electroweak phase transition in the singlet Standard Model via bbγγ and 4l channels, JHEP 12 (2023) 018, [2303.03612]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    C.-Y. Chen, J. Kozaczuk and I. M. Lewis,Non-resonant Collider Signatures of a Singlet-Driven Electroweak Phase Transition, JHEP 08 (2017) 096, [1704.05844]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [19]

    X. Gong, S. Xu, S. Gui, S. Huang and Y.-K. Lau,Mission Design for the TAIJI Mission and Structure Formation in Early Universe, 2104.05033

    arXiv

  13. [20]

    Luo et al.,TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Class

    TianQin collaboration, J. Luo et al.,TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.33 (2016) 035010, [1512.02076]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Amaro-Seoane et al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    LISA collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    arXiv

  15. [22]

    Braden, M

    J. Braden, M. C. Johnson, H. V. Peiris and S. Weinfurtner,Towards the cold atom analog false vacuum, JHEP 07 (2018) 014, [1712.02356]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [23]

    T. P. Billam, K. Brown and I. G. Moss,Simulating cosmological supercooling with a cold atom system, Phys. Rev. A102 (2020) 043324, [2006.09820]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [24]

    T. P. Billam, K. Brown, A. J. Groszek and I. G. Moss,Simulating cosmological supercooling with a cold atom system. II. Thermal damping and parametric instability, Phys. Rev. A104 (2021) 053309

    2021

  18. [25]

    Coleman,Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory, Phys

    S. Coleman,Fate of the false vacuum: Semiclassical theory, Phys. Rev. D15 (May, 1977) 2929–2936

    1977

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    J. M. Cline, A. Friedlander, D.-M. He, K. Kainulainen, B. Laurent and D. Tucker-Smith, Baryogenesis and gravity waves from a UV-completed electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 123529, [2102.12490]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Beniwal, M

    A. Beniwal, M. Lewicki, M. White and A. G. Williams,Gravitational waves and electroweak baryogenesis in a global study of the extended scalar singlet model, JHEP 02 (2019) 183, [1810.02380]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zhou and L

    R. Zhou and L. Bian,Gravitational wave and electroweak baryogenesis with two Higgs doublet models, Phys. Lett. B829 (2022) 137105, [2001.01237]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, M. Merchand, J. M. No and M. Zych,The scalar singlet extension of the Standard Model: gravitational waves versus baryogenesis, JHEP 01 (2023) 093, [2210.16305]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ekstedt, O

    A. Ekstedt, O. Gould, J. Hirvonen, B. Laurent, L. Niemi, P. Schicho et al.,How fast does the WallGo? A package for computing wall velocities in first-order phase transitions, 2411.04970

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec,Bubble wall velocity in a first order electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.75 (1995) 777–780, [hep-ph/9503296]. – 27 –

    1995 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. D. Moore and T. Prokopec,How fast can the wall move? A Study of the electroweak phase transition dynamics, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 7182–7204, [hep-ph/9506475]

    1995 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang and X. Wang,Bubble wall velocity during electroweak phase transition in the inert doublet model, Phys. Rev. D107 (2023) 095005, [2211.13142]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. J. Ramsey-Musolf and J. Zhu,Bubble wall velocity from Kadanoff-Baym equations: fluid dynamics and microscopic interactions, 2504.13724

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Branchina, A

    C. Branchina, A. Conaci, S. De Curtis and L. Delle Rose,Electroweak Phase Transition and Bubble Wall Velocity in Local Thermal Equilibrium, 2504.21213

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    W.-Y. Ai, B. Laurent and J. van de Vis,Bounds on the bubble wall velocity, JHEP 02 (2025) 119, [2411.13641]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yuwen, J.-C

    Z.-Y. Yuwen, J.-C. Wang and S.-J. Wang,Bubble wall velocity from number density current in (non)equilibrium, 2409.20045

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    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

  33. [41]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Non-linearities in cosmological bubble wall dynamics, JHEP 05 (2024) 009, [2401.13522]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki and M. Zych,Hydrodynamical constraints on the bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 103523, [2303.18216]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. Delle Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. Gil Muyor and G. Panico,Collision integrals for cosmological phase transitions, JHEP 05 (2023) 194, [2303.05846]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Laurent and J

    B. Laurent and J. M. Cline,First principles determination of bubble wall velocity, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 023501, [2204.13120]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    De Curtis, L

    S. De Curtis, L. D. Rose, A. Guiggiani, A. G. Muyor and G. Panico,Bubble wall dynamics at the electroweak phase transition, JHEP 03 (2022) 163, [2201.08220]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang and X. Zhang,Bubble wall velocity beyond leading-log approximation in electroweak phase transition, 2011.12903

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Megevand and A

    A. Megevand and A. D. Sanchez,Velocity of electroweak bubble walls, Nucl. Phys. B 825 (2010) 151–176, [0908.3663]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    W.-Y. Ai, M. Carosi, B. Garbrecht, C. Tamarit and M. Vanvlasselaer,Bubble wall dynamics from nonequilibrium quantum field theory, 2504.13725

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Wang, Q.-S

    D.-W. Wang, Q.-S. Yan and M. Huang,Bubble wall velocity and gravitational wave in the minimal left-right symmetric model, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 076011, [2405.01949]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Krajewski, M

    T. Krajewski, M. Lewicki, I. Nałęcz and M. Zych,Steady-state bubbles beyond local thermal equilibrium, 2411.16580

    arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    2010 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wang and Z.-Y

    S.-J. Wang and Z.-Y. Yuwen,The energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transitions beyond the bag equation of state, JCAP 10 (2022) 047, [2206.01148]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang and Y. Li,Sound velocity effects on the phase transition gravitational wave spectrum in the sound shell model, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 103513, [2112.14650]. – 28 –

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin and J. van de Vis,Model-independent energy budget of cosmological first-order phase transitions—A sound argument to go beyond the bag model, JCAP 07 (2020) 057, [2004.06995]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    X. Wang, F. P. Huang and X. Zhang,Energy budget and the gravitational wave spectra beyond the bag model, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 103520, [2010.13770]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Athron, C

    P. Athron, C. Balazs, A. Fowlie, L. Morris, G. White and Y. Zhang,How arbitrary are perturbative calculations of the electroweak phase transition?, JHEP 01 (2023) 050, [2208.01319]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Elias-Miro, J

    J. Elias-Miro, J. R. Espinosa and T. Konstandin,Taming Infrared Divergences in the Effective Potential, JHEP 08 (2014) 034, [1406.2652]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Curtin, P

    D. Curtin, P. Meade and H. Ramani,Thermal Resummation and Phase Transitions, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 787, [1612.00466]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [59]

    R. R. Parwani,Resummation in a hot scalar field theory, Phys. Rev. D45 (1992) 4695, [hep-ph/9204216]

    1992 arXiv

  52. [60]

    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

  53. [61]

    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. D92 (2015) 123009, [1504.03291]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    H.-K. Guo, K. Sinha, D. Vagie and G. White,Phase Transitions in an Expanding Universe: Stochastic Gravitational Waves in Standard and Non-Standard Histories, JCAP 01 (2021) 001, [2007.08537]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    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

  56. [64]

    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, [2003.08892]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    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

  58. [66]

    Giese, T

    F. Giese, T. Konstandin, K. Schmitz and J. van de Vis,Model-independent energy budget for LISA, JCAP 01 (2021) 072, [2010.09744]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Carena, A

    M. Carena, A. Ireland, T. Ou and I. R. Wang,The Discriminant Power of Bubble Wall Velocities: Gravitational Waves and Electroweak Baryogenesis, 2504.17841. – 29 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.